V 


A 


UL  15  1919 


BS  A75  .H3  1919 
Hall,  Angelo,  1868- 
Facts  about  the  Bible 


FACTS    ABOUT    THE 
BIBLE 


JUL  15  19 


'/ 


ANGELO  HALL,  A.B.,  S.T.B. 


^'. 


SECOND    EDITION 


BOSTON 

RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

THE    GORHAM    PRESS 


Copyright,  19 19,  by  Angelo  Hall 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  of  America 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A. 


DEDICATED   TO   THAT   WISE    MOTHER   AND 
BRAVE    COMPANION  IN  ARMS 

MY    WIFE 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

THE  first  edition  of  this  little  book,  published 
privately  twenty  years  ago,  when  I  was  the 
Unitarian  minister  at  Turners  Falls,  Massachu- 
setts, has  become  exhausted.  A  thousand  copies 
were  printed,  and  the  bill  for  printing  was  paid 
by  my  father,  Asaph  Hall,  the  distinguished  as- 
tronomer, who,  having  known  me  intimately  for 
nearly  thirty  years,  believed  in  me. 

My  reasons  for  publishing  were,  I  trust,  unsel- 
fish, as  are  my  reasons  for  publishing  this  Second 
Edition  in  the  fifty-first  year  of  my  age.  At  fifty  one 
who  has  failed  in  the  ministry  can  hardly  hope  to 
re-establish  oneself  by  means  of  such  a  work  as 
this.  For  the  past  fourteen  years  I  have  earned 
a  living  as  a  teacher  of  mathematics,  thus  reversing 
the  custom  in  England,  where  mathematicians  have 
secured  comfortable  livings  in  the  church  and  then 
proceeded  to  publish  works  on  higher  mathematics. 
I  republish  this  little  book  now,  as  I  published  it 
twenty  years  ago,  simply  to  pass  on  to  others  in- 
formation that  may  prove  valuable. 

The  intelligent  study  of  Christianity  helps  to 
5 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition 


break  down  sectarianism  and  to  prevent  the  rank 
growth  in  the  rich  soil  of  America  of  such  weeds 
as  Mormonism  and  Christian  Science.  Now  all 
intelligent  study  of  Christianity  must  begin  with  the 
study  of  the  Bible.  This  I  saw  as  clearly  t^venty 
years  ago  as  I  do  to-day.  I  had  spent  three  years 
at  the  Harvard  Divinity  School  making  as  thor- 
ough a  study  of  the  Bible  as  the  time  permitted — 
not  shunning  the  study  of  Hebrew  as  some  theo- 
logians do.  In  my  early  youth  I  had  had  a  thor- 
ough drill  in  Latin,  Greek,  and  mathematics;  and 
at  Harvard  College  I  had  taken  high  rank,  espe- 
cially in  mathematics.  So  I  took  up  the  study  of 
the  Bible  with  the  open  mind  of  a  scholar.  Let  me 
pass  on  to  my  fellow  citizens  the  fruit  of  my  labors. 
There  is  enough  of  the  dynamite  of  truth  in  this 
little  book  to  tumble  high  priests  from  their  thrones 
and  so  help  to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy. 
"Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free." 

I  have  said  so  much  that  is  personal  that  I  will 
here  add  another  bit  of  personal  histor}^  Eighteen 
months  before  I  entered  the  Divinity  School  I  had 
read  the  New  Testament  carefully,  and  with  a  lay- 
man's untutored  mind  I  had  made  the  following 
note,  which  I  sent  to  that  famous  theologian.  Dr. 
James  Martineau,  with  the  comment  that  the  resur- 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition 


rectfon  of  Jesus  might  be  accounted  for  on  the 
hypothesis  that  he  had  not  died  upon  the  cross  but 
swooned : 

All  four  Gospels  state  that  Jesus  gave  up  the 
ghost.  But  witness  these  statements:  "Then  came 
the  soldiers,  and  brake  the  legs  of  the  first,  and 
of  the  other  which  was  crucified  with  him.  But 
when  they  came  to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  he  was 
already  dead,  they  brake  not  his  legs." — John  19, 
32-33.  "When  the  even  was  come,  there  came  a 
rich  man  of  Arimathaea,  named  Joseph,  who  also 
himself  was  Jesus'  disciple:  He  went  to  Pilate, 
and  begged  the  body  of  Jesus." — Matthew  27,  57- 
58.  "And  there  came  also  Nicodemus." — John  19, 
39.  "And  Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were  already 
dead." — Mark  15,  44.  "His  disciples  came  by 
night,  and  stole  him  away.  .  .  .  And  this  saying  is 
commonly  reported  among  the  Jews  until  this  day." 
— Matthew  28,  13-15.  ''I  am  not  yet  ascended  to 
my  Father." — John  20,  17.  "Go  tell  my  brethren 
that  they  go  into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they  see 
me." — Matthew  28,  10.  "He  said  unto  them. 
Have  ye  here  any  meat?  And  they  gave  him  a 
piece  of  a  broiled  fish,  and  of  an  honeycomb.  And 
he  took  it,  and  did  eat  before  them." — Luke  24,  41- 
43.  "They  saw  a  fire  of  coals  there,  and  fish  laid 
thereon,  and  bread." — John  21,  9. 


8  Preface  to  the  Second  Edition 

To  this  Dr.  Martineau  was  generous  enough  to 
reply,  in  his  own  handwriting,  as  follows: 

35  Gordon  Square, 

Mr.  Angelo  Hall,  ^f"'''  ^^  C- 

Dear  Sir,  Mar.  7,  1892. 

The  hypothesis  which  you  propound,  of  a  swoon 
on  the  cross  and  subsequent  resuscitation,  to  ac- 
count for  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
has  been  often  advanced  and  discussed;  and  is,  I 
think,  prevailingly  regarded  as  one  of  the  least 
tenable.  As  it  is  to  be  found  argumentatively 
treated  in  a  copious  literature  of  Christian  Evi- 
dences, positive  and  negative,  you  must  excuse  me 
from  reconsidering  it.  The  method  of  speculative 
conjecture,  so  devised  as  to  fit  in  with  the  par- 
ticulars contained  in  the  narratives  of  the  four 
gospels,  is  in  itself  obsolete;  all  critical  research 
being  directed,  as  an  essential  preliminary,  to  the 
origin,  growth,  and  historical  material  of  the  docu- 
ments themselves.  The  facts  cannot  be  sifted  and 
brought  to  light,  till  the  record  has  been  made  to 
tell  its  story.  This  is  the  work,  not  of  inventive 
ingenuity,  but  of  close  critical  study  and  exact 
learning;  the  application  of  which  has  already  been 
fruitful  in  its  results  of  clearer  insight  into  the  early 
history  of  Christianity. 

I  have  not  time  to  enter  into  further  explana- 
tions, and  must  ask  your  indulgence  to  my  brevity. 
Yours  faithfully, 

James   Martineau. 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition  9 

Needless  to  say,  this  epistle  of  James  to  the 
Americans  is  preserved  among  the  most  precious 
of  my  possessions.  James  Martineau  here  urges 
us  to  ascertain  in  a  scholarly  way  the  Facts  About 
The  Bible. 

In  this  second  edition  I  add  a  chapter  on  Live 
Issues.  Perhaps  this  will  serve  to  satisfy  such  crit- 
ics as  the  prosperous  Unitarian  minister  who  did 
me  the  honor  of  noticing  my  little  book  publicly  at 
King's  Chapel,  Boston,  years  ago.  He  said  people 
don't  want  to  know  facts  about  the  Bible  (and 
many,  I  confess,  do  not).  They  want  to  be  in- 
spired by  the  Bible.  ''The  letter  killeth  but  the 
spirit  giveth  life."  I,  too,  believe  this.  In  witness 
thereof  I  add  the  chapter  on  Live  Issues. 

Angelo  Hall. 

Annapolis,  Maryland. 
October  12,  191 8. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  P^°^ 

PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION  .     .  s 

I.   THE  BIBLE i5 

II.   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT i7 

External  Evidence i7 

Internal  Evidence 21 

The  Books  of  the  Law 23 

The  Old  Testament  as  a  Whole     ....  34 

The  Two  Isaiahs 38 

III.  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  APPLICATION  OF 

THE     FOREGOING     FACTS     TO     THE 

STUDY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT     .     .  40 
I.    References    to    Magic,    Witchcraft   and 

Divination  in  the  Old  Testament    .     .  40 

II.   The  Song  of  Deborah 45 

III.  The  Story  of  Samson 47 

IV.  Religious  Life  and  Belief  of  David     .     .  50 
V.   Conceptions  of  God  and  Religion  in  Amos  .  53 

VI.    The  Growth  of  the  Law 5^ 

IV.  THE   FORMATION  OF  THE    NEW  TESTA- 

MENT    71 

External  Evidence 7^ 

Internal  Evidence 7^ 

New  Testament  Epistles 88 

V.   THE  HISTORY  OF  JESUS  AS  PRESENTED  BY 

THE  STUDY  OF  FACTS 90 

VI.   THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 97 

VII.   LIVE  ISSUES 109 

II 


FACTS  ABOUT  THE  BIBLE 


FACTS  ABOUT  THE  BIBLE 


CHAPTER    I 

THE    BIBLE 

THE  word  "Bible"  is  Greek  for  "the  books." 
Our  Holy  Bible  is  a  library  of  sacred  books, 
66  in  the  Protestant  Bible,  and  upwards  of  70  in 
the  Catholic  Bible.  Old  Testament  Books  called 
by  the  Protestants  Apocryphal,  that  is,  unauthori- 
tative, w^ere  declared  by  the  Catholics  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  (A.  D.  1546 — fourth  session  of  the 
council)  to  have  equal  authorit}^  with  the  rest  of 
Holy  Writ.  The  New  Testament  of  both  Cath- 
olics and  Protestants  comprises  27  books.  The  dif- 
ference betw^een  Protestant  and  Catholic  Old  Tes- 
tament came  about  in  this  w^ay: 

The  Old  Testament  in  Greek  was  the  sacred 
scripture  of  the  synagogues  in  Asia  Minor  and 
Greece  where  Paul  and  other  apostles  preached 
Christianity;  so  that  before  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  collected  together,  the  Holy  Writ 
15 


1 6  Facts  About  the  Bible 

of  the  early  Christians  was  this  Old  Testament  in 
Greek,  commonly  called  the  Septuagint.  Now  the 
Septuagint  originated  in  Alexandria,  Egypt,  where 
there  was  a  large  Jewish  population  two  or  three 
centuries  before  Christ.  These  Alexandrian  Jews, 
living  among  Greeks,  learned  to  speak  and  to  write 
the  Greek  language;  and  they  caused  their  Holy 
Scriptures  to  be  translated  from  Hebrew  into 
Greek.  In  the  course  of  time,  the  Scriptures  of 
these  Greek-speaking  Jews  came  to  comprise  books 
— such  as  I  and  H  Maccabees,  Ecclesiasticus,  Ju- 
dith, Tobit,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon — not  included 
in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament.  At  the  time  of 
the  Reformation  the  Protestants  set  aside  these  ad- 
ditional books  as  apocryphal,  and  returned  to  the 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  as  the  authoritative  col- 
lection of  sacred  books. 


CHAPTER    II 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


CONSIDER  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
Testament  separately. 
What  do  we  know  about  the  origin  and  history 
of  the  Protestant  Old  Testament,  that  is,  the  He- 
brew Bible?     Examine  first  the  external  evidence 
— from  sources  outside  these  Hebrew  books. 

External  Evidence 

First,  there  is  the  Septuagint,  the  Greek  transla- 
tion just  described.  It  shows  many  interesting 
things  in  regard  to  the  ancient  Hebrew  books.  For 
instance,  there  are  passages  in  the  Greek  transla- 
tion which  do  not  appear  in  the  Hebrew.  Thus 
in  I  Samuel,  chap.  II,  there  are  half  a  dozen  lines 
in  the  Greek  version  of  Hannah's  song  not  to  be 
found  in  the  Hebrew.  So  with  Daniel,  chap.  III. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Greek  book  of  Jeremiah  is 
one-eighth  shorter  than  the  Hebrew  Jeremiah. 
There  are,  as  would  be  expected,  many  discrepan- 
17 


1 8  Facts  About  the  Bible 

cies  between  Greek  and  Hebrew  readings  through- 
out the  Old  Testament,  and  obscurities  of  the  one 
text  are  often  explained  by  reference  to  the  other. 
Secondl)^,  there  is  the  great  flood  of  light  shed 
upon  Biblical  matters  by  recent  discoveries  in  an- 
cient Mesopotamia.  When  the  children  of  Israel 
were  w^andering  in  the  wilderness,  the  people  of 
Mesopotamia  were  enjoying  a  state  of  civilization 
many  centuries  old.  Statements  in  the  books  of 
Kings  regarding  the  Hebrew  kingdom  are  corrobo- 
rated by  monuments  and  records  found  in  Mesopo- 
tamia. Thus  Jehu,  who  reigned  about  840  B.  C. 
(see  H  Kings,  chaps.  IX  and  X),  is  represented 
on  an  Assyrian  monument  as  paying  tribute  to  As- 
syria. Sennacherib,  the  Assyrian,  has  left  us  writ- 
ings describing  how  he  shut  King  Hezekiah  up  in 
Jerusalem  like  a  bird  in  his  cage.  (See  II  Kings  18: 
13  fol.)  Again,  many  Old  Testament  stories  ap- 
pear to  come  from  Mesopotamia,  as  they  are  found 
recorded  on  clay  tablets  which  once  belonged  to 
the  libraries  of  Assyrian  monarchs.  (See  George 
Smith's  "Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis.")  Such  is 
the  case  with  the  story  of  the  flood  and  Noah's 
ark.  Seven  was  a  sacred  number  with  the  Mesopo- 
tamians,  and  very  likely  the  Hebrew  seven-pronged 
candlesticks  derive  their  mj^stic  meaning  from  some 
such  idea.     (See  Exodus  25 :  31-37.)     In  Isaiah  27: 


The  Old  Testament  19 

I,  Amos  9:3,  and  Job  26:  13  are  references  to  a 
Babylonian  myth  about  a  great  serpent. 

Thirdly,  the  study  of  the  religion  of  Semitic  na- 
tions in  general,  Phoenicians,  Assyrians,  Arabians, 
etc.,  throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  early  Hebrew  re- 
ligion. (See  W.  Robertson  Smith's  famous  work 
on  ''The  Religion  of  the  Semites.")  For  example, 
we  find  in  the  Old  Testament  reference  to  Jehovah 
as  a  tribe  God,  just  as  Chemosh  was  the  tribe  God 
of  the  Ammonites.  (Judges  11 :  21-24.)  Laws  re- 
garding unclean  animals  (Leviticus  11)  correspond 
with  the  general  custom  of  taboo.  Early  Hebrews 
wore  nose-rings.  (See  Gen.  24:  47  and  Isai.  3:  21.) 
The  sacredness  of  a  Nazarite's  hair  (Judges  13:5 
and  I  Sam.  i :  11,  and  Numbers  6:5),  holy  ground 
(Exodus  3:5),  etc.,  are  general  Semitic  ideas,  not 
peculiar  to  the  Israelites.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  the  Israelites  were  much  like  their  neighbors, 
given  to  the  worship  of  local  deities  (Hosea  2:  13, 
and  4:  13),  believing  in  angels  (Judges  VI  and 
XIII)  and  witches  (I  Samuel  28).  So  that  the 
study  of  general  Semitic  religious  thought  helps  a 
great  deal  in  the  proper  understanding  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

As  the  last  source  of  external  evidence,  we  have 
to  consider  direct  testimony.  The  apocr>'phal  book 
of  the  Old  Testament  Ecclesiasticus  is  the  oldest 


20  Facts  About  the  Bible 

witness.  It  says  (see  the  prologue  of  Eccles.)  that 
the  grandfather  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  wrote 
the  book  (about  185  B.  C).  Now  chap.  44  and 
following  of  this  book  mention  incidents  re- 
corded in  the  books  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Now  the  Hebrew  Bible 
has  three  divisions,  the  Law  (know  to  us  as  the 
Pentateuch,  being  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
Numbers  and  Deuteronomy),  the  Prophets  (includ- 
ing historical  writings  as  well  as  the  books  of  proph- 
ets), and  the  Writings  (Psalms,  Job,  etc.).  Jesus 
son  of  Sirach  in  his  preface  to  Ecclesiasticus  men- 
tions the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  "other  [or, 
perhaps,  ''the  other]  books  of  our  fathers."  This 
evidence  seems  to  indicate  that  in  185  B.  C.  the 
books  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  in  their 
present  shape,  while  the  books  of  the  Writings  had 
not  been  definitely  selected  and  arranged.  Other 
evidence  corroborates  this  view,  for  at  councils  of 
Jews  as  late  as  the  second  century  A.  D.  the  ques- 
tion of  retaining  certain  books  of  the  Writings  as 
Holy  Writ  (for  example,  Esther)  was  hotly  dis- 
cussed. 

The  name  given  to  Hebrew  Scripture  by  New 
Testament  writers  is  usually  "the  Law  and  the 
Prophets"  or  "the  Law."  (See  Math.  5:  17,  11: 
13,  22:40,  John  1:45,  Acts  5:34,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.) 


The  Old  Testament  21 


In  Luke  24:44  it  is  "the  Law  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms." 

Internal  Evidence 

For  details  concerning  the  Old  Testament  we  are 
thrown  back  upon  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
books. 

At  first  let  us  notice  a  piece  of  internal  evidence 
which  fits  in  with  what  has  just  been  said  in  regard 
to  the  three  divisions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.     After 
the  return  of  the  Jews  from  captivity  in  Babylon, 
Ezra,    who   was   a    "ready   scribe    in    the   law    of 
Moses,   which   the  Lord,   the  God  of   Israel,   had 
given"   (see  Ezra  7:6),  went  to  Jerusalem  (about 
450  B.  C),  and  there  with  the  help  of  the  patriotic 
Nehemiah   set   up   a   theocratic   government   based 
upon  "the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."     (See  Nehe- 
miah 8 :  I    fol.  and  compare  Ezra  3:2  and  Ezra 
7:6.)  This  book  must  have  contained  things  found 
in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  (compare  Neh.  13:  i 
and  2  with  Deut.  23:3  and  4),  and  in  Leviticus 
(compare   Neh.   8:14-18  with   Lev.   23:39   fol-)- 
And  it  probably  contained  things  found  in  the  re- 
maining books  of  the   Pentateuch    (see   Neh.  9:6 
fol.,  9 :  9  fol.,  and  9 :  22  fol.,  with  which  last  com- 
pare Numbers  21:21  fol.).     So  it  is  generally  con- 


22  Facts  About  the  Bible 


ceded  that  the  Pentateuch,  that  is,  the  five  books 
of  the  Law,  which  in  after  years,  before  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  became  the  especial  object  of  venera- 
tion with  pious  Jews,  was  this  "book  of  the  law  of 
Moses"  read  to  the  people  by  Ezra,  and  used  as 
the  foundation  of  the  re-established  government  at 
Jerusalem.  The  collection  of  prophetic  books  seems 
not  to  have  been  completed  as  yet.  Indeed,  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah  were  among  the 
returned  exiles  ( Ezra  5:1).  Ezekiel  had  written 
while  in  exile,  and  Jeremiah  just  before  the  down- 
fall of  the  old  Jerusalem  and  during  the  downfall. 

To  sum  up,  then,  of  the  three  divisions  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible, 

( 1 )  The  Writings  had  not  been  definitely  se- 
lected and  arranged  in  185  B.  C.  Indeed,  several 
of  the  Psalms  are  supposed  to  have  been  written 
after  this  date,  when  the  patriotic  Maccabees  were 
struggling  against  the  Greeks  (about  165  B.  C). 
For  instance,  compare  Psalm  79  with  i  Maccabees 
7:16  and  17  and  i :  24. 

(2)  On  the  other  hand,  in  185  B.  C.  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  were  in  substantially  their  present 
shape. 


The  Old  Testament  23 


(3)  Finally,  in  450  B.  C.  the  Law  was  extant, 
but  the  Prophets  and  the  Writings  had  not  yet  been 
compiled. 

The  Books  of  the  Law 

The  next  step  would  be  to  trace  out  the  origin 
of  the  Law,  or  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  is  called.  A 
popular  notion  among  uneducated  people  is  that 
Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  Indeed,  many  of  the 
laws  given  in  these  five  books  are  therein  attributed 
to  Moses,  the  Law-giver;  so  that  it  is  no  wonder 
that  the  Jews  of  Christ's  time  (450  years  after 
Ezra  had  quoted  Moses  as  an  authority  for  the  laws 
of  the  new  state)  spoke  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the 
Law  of  Moses.  (See  John  i :  45.)  But  the  events 
described  in  Genesis  are  said  to  have  happened  cen- 
turies before  Moses  was  born ;  and  at  the  close  of 
the  last  book  of  the  Pentateuch,  Deuteronomy,  is 
an  account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Moses.  In 
Numbers  21  :  14  a  book  called  ''the  book  of  the 
Wars  of  the  Lord,"  by  an  unknown  author,  is 
directly  quoted  from.  Nearly  a  thousand  years  had 
elapsed  since  the  death  of  Moses  when  Ezra  the 
scribe  read  the  Pentateuch  to  the  people.  In  these 
days  we  should  question  very  carefully  the  author- 
ship of  a  manuscript  written  in  the  year  900  A.  D. 

While  many  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  are  attrib- 


24  Facts  About  the  Bible 

uted  to  Moses  by  the  Pentateuch  itself,  it  is  evident 
that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  all  five  books  as 
we  have  them. 

Who  then  did  write  the  Pentateuch,  the  law  of 
Moses?  This  question  has  engaged  the  attention 
of  the  wisest  scholars  for  two  centuries,  and  it  will 
probably  never  be  answered  satisfactorily.  But 
about  a  century  and  a  half  ago,  Jean  Astruc,  a  cele- 
brated French  physician,  hit  upon  a  clue  to  the 
solution  of  the  question.  Modern  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  may  be  said  to  date  from  his  work, 
1753  A.  D. 

Churchmen  in  regular  standing  in  England  ac- 
cept the  results  of  this  criticism,  and  have  written 
books  based  upon  it.  For  example,  *'An  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,"  by 
S.  R.  Driver,  D.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford;  and  "The 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  an  Essay  on  the 
gradual  Growth  and  Formation  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  of  Scripture,"  by  Herbert  Edward  Ryle, 
B.  D.,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Professorial 
Fellow  of  King's  College,  Cambridge,  and  examin- 
ing chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Ripon. 

Dr.  Driver  says  in  the  preface  to  his  work,  dated 
June  18,  1891: 


The  Old  Testament  2$ 


"Criticism  in  the  hands  of  Christian  scholars 
does  not  banish  or  destroy  the  inspiration  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  it  presupposes  it ;  it  seeks  only  to 
determine  the  conditions  under  which  it  operates, 
and  the  literary  forms  through  which  it  manifests 
itself;  and  it  thus  helps  us  to  frame  truer  concep- 
tions of  the  methods  which  it  has  pleased  God  to 
employ  in  revealing  Himself  to  His  Ancient  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  and  in  preparing  the  way  for  the 
fuller  manifestation  of  Himself  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Driver  might  have  added  that  there  are  evidently 
many  literary  errors  in  the  Old  Testament,  due  to 
human  carelessness,  not  to  speak  of  such  vicious 
stories  as  that  of  Lot  and  his  daughters  and  Judah 
and  his  sons  (like  idle  tales  in  Homer,  too  ancient 
to  be  credited).  For  example,  on  what  theory  of 
literal  inspiration  are  we  to  account  for  such  repeti- 
tions as: 

Ps.   14,  repeated  in  Ps.  53. 

n'Chron.  36:22-23,  "        "    Ezra  i :  1-3. 

Jer.  49:14-16,  "        ''    Obad.   1-4. 

H  Ki.  24:18-25:21,  "        "    Jer.  52:1-27 

H  Kings  18:  13-20:  19,       "        "    Isai.  36-39. 

To  resume,  scholars  think  they  have  discovered 
that  in  the  book  of  Genesis  there  is  a  combination 
of  three  narratives,  woven  together:  one  a  record 
of  the  beginning  of  things  and  a  list  of  genealogies ; 


26  Facts  About  the  Bible 

one  in  which  the  name  of  God  is  Elohim  (a  He- 
brew word  translated  "God");  and  one  in  which 
the  name  is  Jahweh  (a  Hebrew  word  translated 
"Lord").  After  separating  the  first  narrative  (des- 
ignated by  the  letter  P)  from  the  whole,  these  two 
words  are  the  key  words  with  which  to  unravel  the 
one  of  the  remaining  narratives  from  the  other. 
For  short,  the  one  of  these  narratives  is  designated 
by  the  letter  E,  the  other  by  J.  To  quote  Driver 
(page  12)  "E  first  appears  in  the  story  of  Abra- 
ham." 

Driver  gives  the  following  analysis  of  Genesis: 

P*  =:  I :  I  —  2:4^  (that  is,  through  first  part  of 
2:4)  +5:  I — 28  and  30  —  32  +  6:9  —  22  + 
7:6   and    II     and     13  —  16^    and     18  —  21     and 

24  +  8:1 — 2^    and    3^  —  5    and    13^   and    14  — 

19  +  9*1  —  17  and  28  and  29  +  10:1  —  7  and 

20  and  22  and  23  and  31  and  32  +  11:  10  —  26 
and  27  and  3 1  and  32  +  12:4^  and  5  +  13:6  and 
11^  and  12^  +  16:  i^  and  3  and  15  and  16  +  17 
(entire)  +  19:  29  +  21 :  i^  and  2^ —  5  +  23  (en- 
tire)+25:  7 —  11^  and  12  —  17  and  19  and  20 
and  26''  +  26 :  34  —  35  +  27 :  46  —  28 :  9+  29 :  24 
and  29  +  31 :  18^  +  33:  18"^  +34:  I — 2^  and  4 
and  6  and  8  —  10  and  13  —  18  and  20  —  24  and 

25  partly  and  27  —  29  +  35:9 — 13  and  15  and 
22^  —  29  +  chapter  36  (in  the  main) +37:1  — 
2^  +  41 :  46  +  46 :  6  —  27  +  47 :  5  —  6^  and  7  — 

*  Compare  the  beginning  of  I   Chronicles. 


The  Old  Testament  27 


1 1  and  27^  and  28  +  48 :  3  —  6  and  7  (  ?)  +  49 :  i* 
and  28^  —  33  +  50:12 — 13.  (See  Driver  pp.  9 
and   10.) 

P  being  eliminated,  the  book  is  further  analyzed 
thus: 

I.     CHAPTERS    I— II    THE   BEGINNINGS 
OF  HISTORY 

J  =  2:4''t  — 3:24,  4:1—26,  5:29,  6:1—8, 
7:1 — 5  and  7  —  10  (in  the  main)  and  12  and 
16''  and  17  and  22  and  23,  8 :  2^  and  3^  and  6  —  12 
and  13^^  and  20  —  22,  9:  18  —  27,  10:  8 —  19  and 
21  and  24  —  30,  1 1 :  I  —  9  and  28  —  30. 

II.     CHAPTERS  12—26  ABRAHAM  AND 
ISAAC 

|'J=:i2:i — 4^   and   6  —  20,    13:1 — 5   and 

\  7  —  11^  and   12^ —  18. 

[  E  =  chapter  15. 

f  J  =16:1'' — 14     (except    verse    3),    18:1  — 

j  19:28  and  30  —  33. 

[E  =  20:  I  —  17. 

f  J  =  21  :  I  and  2   (in  part)   and  33,  22:  15  — 

I  18    and   20  —  24. 

'1  E  =  21  :6  —  21,      21:22  —  32%      22:1  —  14 

[  and  19. 

t"2:4^"  that  is,  the  last  part  of  verse  4,  as  3*  means 
the   first   part   of   verse   3. 


28  Facts  About  the  Bible 

{J  =  24  (entire),  25:1 — 6  and  11^  and  18 
and  21 — 26*  and  27  —  34>  26:1  —  14 
and  16  and  17  and  19  —  33. 

IIL    CHAPTERS  27—36  JACOB  AND  ESAU 

'  J  =  27  :  I  —  45,  28 :  10  and  13  —  16  and  19, 

29:2  —  14. 
E  ^  28:  II  and  12  and  17  and  18  and  20  — 
22,  29:  I. 

'J*  =  29:3i  —  35,  30:3^  —  5  and  7  and  9 — 
16  and  20^ 
E  =  29:i5  —  23  and  25  —  28  and  30, 
30 :  I  —  3^  and  6  and  8  and  1 7  —  20^. 

J  =  30:24  —  31:  I,  31:3  and  46  and  48  — 

50. 
E  =  30:20*^  —  23,  31:2  and  4  —  45  (except 

18^)  and  47. 

J  =  32:  3  —  13^   and   22   and  24  —  32, 

33:  I  — 17. 
E  =  3i:5i— 32:2,  32:13^  —  21  and  23, 
33:18^  —  20. 

f  J  =  34*2^  —  3  and  5  and  7  and  11  and  12 

\  and  19. 

[  E  =  35 :  I  —  8  and  16  —  20. 

/J  =  34:25    (partly   )and  26  and  30  and  31, 
\  35:  14  and  21  and  22^. 

*  See  the  passage  in  the  Bible.     This  bit  of  analysis 
appears    absurd. 


The  Old  Testament  29 

IV.     CHAPTERS  37—50  JOSEPH 

J  =  37:  12  —  21    and   25  —  27   and   28^  and 

31—35. 
E  =  37:2^ — II    and   22  —  24  and   28^   and 

28^  —  30  and  36. 
J  =  chapter    38    and    chapters    39,    42 :  38  — 

44:34   (with  traces  of  E). 
E  =  chapters  40  (with  traces  of  J),  41 :  i  — 

45   (with  traces  of  J). 

J  =  46 :  28  —  47 :  4,  47 :  6^  and   12  —  26  and 
27*^  and  29  —  31. 

E=:  41:47  — 57,   42:1  —  37,   45:1—46:5 
(with  traces  of  J). 

(J  =  49:1^  —  28^,  50:1  —  II   and   14. 
E  =  48 :  I    and   2   and   in   the   main   8  —  22, 
50:15  —  26. 

(From  Driver  pp.  12 —  16.) 

Investigating  this  question,  Driver  says  (pp. 
6-8)  :  "As  soon  as  the  book  [of  Genesis]  is  studied 
with  sufficient  attention,  phenomena  disclose  them- 
selves which  show  incontrovertibly  that  it  is  com- 
posed of  distinct  documents  or  sources,  which  have 
been  welded  together  by  a  later  compiler  or  redactor 
into  a  continuous  whole.  These  phenomena  are 
very  numerous;  but  they  may  be  reduced  in  the 
main  to  the  two  following  heads :  ( i )  the  same 
event  is  doubly  recorded;  (2)  the  language,  and 
frequently  the  representation  as  well,  varies  in  dif- 


30  Facts  About  the  Bible 

ferent  sections.  Thus  i :  1-2:4''  and  2:  4^-25  con- 
tain a  double  narrative  of  the  origin  of  man  upon 
earth.  It  might,  no  doubt,  be  argued  prima  facie 
that  2:4^  if.  is  intended  simply  as  a  more  detailed 
account  of  what  is  described  summarily  in  i :  26-30 ; 
and  it  is  true  that  probably  the  present  position  of 
this  section  is  due  to  the  relation  in  which,  speaking 
generally,  it  stands  to  the  narrative  of  those  verses, 
but  upon  closer  examination  differences  reveal  them- 
selves which  preclude  the  supposition  that  both  sec- 
tions are  the  work  of  the  same  hand.  In  2:4''  ff. 
the  order  of  creation  is:  i,  man  (v.  7);  2,  vege- 
tation (v.  9;  cf.  V.  5);  3,  animals  (v.  19);  4, 
woman  (v.  21  f.).  The  separation  made  bet^veen 
the  creation  of  woman  and  man,  if  it  stood  alone, 
might  indeed  be  reasonably  explained  upon  the  sup- 
position just  referred  to,  that  2:4^  ff.  viz.  describes 
in  detail  what  is  stated  succinctly  in  1:27^;  but 
the  order  in  the  other  cases  forms  part  of  a  progres- 
sion that  is  evidently  intentional  on  the  part  of  the 
narrator  here,  and  as  evidently  opposed  to  the  order 
in  chapter  I  (vegetation,  animals,  man).  Not  only, 
however,  are  there  these  material  differences  be- 
tween the  two  narratives;  they  differ  also  in  form. 
The  style  of  1:1-2:4^  is  unornate,  measured,  pre- 
cise, and  particular  phrases  frequently  recur.  That 
of  2 :  4^^  ff.  is  freer  and  more  varied ;  the  actions 


The  Old  Testament  31 

of  God  are  described  with  some  fulness  and  pictur- 
esqueness  of  detail ;  instead  of  simply  speaking  or 
creating,  as  in  chapter  I,  He  fashions,  breathes  into 
man  the  breath  of  life,  plants,  places,  takes,  sets, 
brings,  closes  up,  builds,  etc.,  (2:7,  8,  15,  19,  21, 
22),  and  even,  in  the  allied  chapter  3  (v.  8)  walks 
in  the  garden :  the  recurring  phrases  are  less  marked, 
and  not  the  same  as  those  of  i :  1-2 :  4\  In  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Deluge,  6:9-13  (the  wickedness  of 
the  earth)  is  a  duplicate  of  6:  5-8,  as  is  also  7:1-5  of 
6:  18-22 — the  latter,  with  the  difference  that  of 
every  clean  beast  seven  are  to  be  taken  into  the  ark, 
while  in  6:  19  (cf.  7:  15)  two  of  every  sort,  with- 
out distinction,  are  prescribed ;  similarly  7 :  22  f. 
(destruction  of  all  flesh)  repeats  the  substance  of 
7:21;  there  are  also  accompanying  differences  of 
representation  and  phraseology,  one  group  of  sec- 
tions being  akin  to  1:1-2:4"^  and  displaying 
throughout  the  same  phraseology,  the  other  ex- 
hibiting a  different  phraseology,  and  being  conceived 
in  the  spirit  of  2:4^-3:24  (compare  for  example 
7:  16''  shut  in  8:21  smelled,  with  2:7,  8,  15,  etc.). 
17:  16-19  and  18:  10-14  the  promise  of  a  son  to 
Sarah  is  twice  described,  with  an  accompanying 
double  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  name  Isaac*. 

*  "There  is  a  third   explanation,   from   a  third  source 
in  21:6." 


32  Facts  About  the  Bible 


The  section  27:  46-28:  9  differs  appreciably  in  style 
from  27:  1-45,  and  at  the  same  time  exhibits  Re- 
bekah  as  influenced  by  a  different  motive  in  sug- 
gesting Jacob's  departure  from  Canaan,  not  as  in 
27 :  42-45  to  escape  his  brother's  anger,  but  to  pro- 
cure a  wife  agreeable  to  his  parents'  wishes  (see 
26:34  f.)-  Further,  in  28:  19  and  35:  15  we  find 
two  explanations  of  the  origin  of  the  name  Bethel; 
32:28:  and  35:10  two  of  Israel;  32:3,  33:16 
Esau  is  described  as  already  resident  in  Edom,  while 
36:  6  f.  his  migration  thither  is  attributed  to  causes 
which  could  only  have  come  into  operation  after 
Jacob's  return  to  Canaan." 

The  same  analysis  applies  to  the  Pentateuch  in 
general,  and  to  the  book  of  Joshua  also.  But  many 
more  elements  besides  P,  J  and  E  enter  into  com- 
position. Leviticus  is  almost  entirely  devoted  to 
giving  codes  of  priestly  laws.  Deuteronomy  stands 
by  itself,  being  substantially  the  product  of  a  single 
author,  as  it  appears.  Even  in  regard  to  the  book 
of  Genesis,  Driver  says  (p.  8)  : 

''The  Book  of  Genesis  presents  a  group  of  sec- 
tions distinguished  from  the  narrative  on  either 
side  of  them  by  differences  of  phraseology  and  style, 
and  often  by  concomitant  differences  of  representa- 
tion: these  differences,  moreover,  are  not  isolated, 
nor  do  they  occur  in  the  narrative  indiscriminately: 


The  Old  Testament  33 


they  are  numerous,  and  reappear  with  singular  per- 
sistency in  combination  with  each  other;  they  are, 
in  a  word,  so  marked  that  they  can  only  be  ac- 
counted for  upon  the  supposition  that  the  sections 
in  which  they  occur  are  by  a  different  hand  from 
the  rest  of  the  book." 

It  next  remains  to  determine,  or  to  guess  as  well 
as  possible,  the  probable  origin  of  the  narratives  P, 
J  and  E.  To  do  this  it  is  necessary  to  trace  the 
growth  of  Hebrew  culture  as  shown  in  the  history 
of  the  people.  The  conclusion  of  scholars  is  that 
all  the  narratives  P,  J  and  E  were  composed  cen- 
turies after  Moses  died,  and  long  after  the  times 
of  King  David. 

No  xloubt  this  date  for  the  Pentateuch  is  about 
right.  But  as  for  the  analysis  of  the  books  into 
separate  "narratives"  and  sources  of  information, 
the  whole  subject  is  in  hopeless  confusion.  It  is 
assumed  that  Jahweh,  the  name  of  the  early  na- 
tional deity  of  the  people  of  Israel,  characterizes 
one  narrative,  and  that  Elohim,  a  more  general 
name  for  the  deity,  characterizes  another.  Whether 
this  assumption  is  borne  out  by  the  facts  is  a  mat- 
ter that  no  common  man  can  decide.  For  my  own 
part,  I  doubt  if  its  application  to  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis can  appear  satisfactory^  to  the  reader  of  this 
treatise.    To  my  mind,  the  only  book  in  the  Penta- 


34  Facts  About  the  Bible 

teuch  which  has  been  satisfactorily  accounted  for  is 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  of  which  I  shall  speak 
later. 

The  Old  Testament  as  a  Whole 

The  safest  way  in  which  to  deal  with  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
to  see  what  history  it  contains.  Beginning  with 
the  book  of  Judges,  nobody  will  dispute  the  general 
accuracy  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  presented 
therein  from  the  times  of  Joshua  down  to  the  times 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah — a  period  of  nearly  a  thou- 
sand years.  Due  allowance  is  to  be  made,  of  course, 
for  the  admixture  of  legendary  matter.  Beginning 
with  the  book  of  Judges  and  continuing  through 
I  and  II  Samuel  and  I  and  II  Kings  the  narra- 
tive proceeds  from  the  conquest  of  Canaan  to  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  (586  B.  C.)  ;  and  it  is  corrobo- 
rated by  the  Prophets,  Amos  (about  750  B.  C), 
Hosea  (about  740  B.  C),  Jeremiah  (625-585 
B.  C),  Ezekiel  (about  595-560  B.  C),  Zephaniah, 
Nahum,  etc.  In  I  and  II  Chronicles,  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  is  a  repetition  of  this  history,  extended 
to  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  corrobo- 
rated by  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  Thus,  most  of  the 
Bible    (excepting  literary  books   like  Job,   Psalms 


The  Old  Testament  35 

and  Proverbs)  is  accounted  for  at  once,  to  be  ac- 
cepted at  face  value  like  the  history  of  Greece 
from  the  siege  of  Troy  to  the  conquest  by  Rome 
(146  B.  C.) 

Of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  there  are  two  ac- 
counts, one  in  the  book  of  Joshua  (v^hich  scholars 
class  with  the  Pentateuch  as  a  late  production)  and 
one  in  the  book  of  Judges.  In  Joshua  we  find  the 
famous  statement  about  the  sun's  standing  still* 
(chap.  X:  13)  and  the  story  of  the  miraculous  fall 
of  the  walls  of  Jericho  by  the  blowing  of  trumpets. 
Canaan  is  conquered  in  short  order  by  the  hero 
Joshua.  Evidently  this  is  a  romance.  The  other 
account  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  in  the  books 
of  Judges  and  I  and  II  Samuel,  appears  to  be 
the  historical  one.  Here  the  conquest  is  gradual, 
attended  with  great  perils  and  set-backs,  and  occu- 
pying several  generations  of  men.  In  Judges  and 
the  books  of  Samuel,  moreover,  we  find  folk-lore 
and  national  songs  (cf.  Judges  5;  II  Sam.  i :  19-27) 
of  an  early  period. 

After  the  days  of  local  chieftains  (called 
** Judges")  came  Samuel  and  Saul  and  David, 
clearly-cut    historical    personages.      Then,     under 


*  Copied,  by  the  way,  from  "the  book  of  Jashar," 
which  must  have  perished  long  ago.  See  Josh.  10:  13 
and  cf.  II   Sam.   i :  18. 


36  Facts  About  the  Bible 

David,  the  Israelites  unite  into  one  firmly-knit  king- 
dom (about  looo  B.  C).  Under  Rehoboam,  Solo- 
mon's son,  the  kingdom  was  disrupted  into  two 
kingdoms — Israel  and  Judah.  Through  the  books 
of  Kings  the  history  of  both  kingdoms  is  traced 
down  in  regular  order  to  the  captivity  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom  in  722  B.  C.  (date  fixed  by 
Assyrian  records)  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  586 
B.  C.  In  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  the 
history  is  continued  to  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  Jewish  worship   (about  450  B.  C). 

Thus  we  are  brought  back  again  to  the  problem 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua,  for  these 
are  about  the  only  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
remaining  that  need  any  explanation.  In  them  the 
ancient  historj^  of  the  Jews  is  related  (for  many 
centuries  before  they  had  a  settled  government), 
and  that  history  is  carried  back  to  the  beginning  of 
the  world.  No  other  nation  ever  made  a  history 
of  this  sort  which  has  ever  been  accepted  as  fact  by 
rational  minds.  Just  how  this  Jewish  history  was 
constructed  and  what  truth  it  contains  we  can 
never  know  fully.  The  decalogue  in  Exodus  20, 
and  the  laws  of  the  three  succeeding  chapters,  evi- 
dently (internal  evidence)  come  down  from  early 
times.  Moses  is  constantly  referred  to  as  the  great 
law-giver ;  but  we  can  hardly  believe  that  the  elabo- 


The  Old  Testament  37 

rate  description  of  the  furniture  and  ritual  in  the 
tabernacle  of  Jehovah  given  in  Exodus  25-30  and 
repeated  at  length  in  the  last  chapters  of  the  book 
came  down  word  by  word  from  the  lips  of  Moses. 
He  must  have  had  more  important  business  to  at- 
tend to.  This  is  to  say  nothing  of  the  account  in 
the  book  of  Exodus  of  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  plagues  inflicted  upon  Pharaoh's  people — 
evidently  national  legends  like  those  to  be  found 
in  Greek  and  Latin  traditions.  The  books  of  Num- 
bers and  Leviticus  are  full  of  laws  which  we  shall 
glance  at  later. 

Concerning  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  there  is  a 
most  interesting  theory.  It  is  believed  to  be  the 
book  the  discovery  of  which  is  described  in  II  Kings 
22:8-11,  and  upon  which  King  Josiah  (about  620 
B.  C.)  based  the  reforms  described  in  II  Kings 
23:  1-24.  These  reforms  came  under  two  heads: 
(i)  Suppression  of  heathen  w^orship,  and  (2)  Cen- 
tralization of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  that  is,  wor- 
ship at  Jerusalem  and  suppression  of  local  shrines 
(such  as  those  permitted  by  the  law  of  Ex.  20: 
24-26,  and  referred  to  by  Amos  and  Hosea  as  at 
Bethel,  Gilgal,  Beersheba  and  Samaria,  Amos  4 :  4, 
5:5,  7:10,  Hos.  4:15,  8:6,  etc.).  These  two 
heads  are  covered  by  Deuteronomy,  chapters  12-26, 
as    follows:    Deut.    12:1-3,    12:4-31,    16:21-22, 


38  Facts  About  the  Bible 

18:10-12,   23:18,    14:23,    15:20,    16:2,    18:6-8, 
16:1,   16:5  f ol. 

As  to  the  introductory  and  concluding  chapters 
of  Deuteronomy,  scholars  are  in  doubt;  but  chap- 
ters 12-26  they  believe  to  be  included  in  the  book 
discovered  in  621  B.  C.  by  the  priest  Hilkiah  and 
presented  to  Josiah,  as  related  in  II  Kings  22.  It 
may  have  been  written,  scholars  think,  twenty-five 
years  or  so  before  its  discovery,  but  not  many  years 
earlier;  for  it  forbids  the  ancient  custom  of  local 
worship  of  Jehovah,  which  was  never  forbidden  be- 
fore the  time  of  Josiah — unless  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  (see  II  Kings  18:4,  the  phrase  ''high 
places").  It  looks  as  if  the  book  were  written  for 
political  as  well  as  for  religious  effect,  and  presented 
to  the  young  King  Josiah  (25  years  old)  by  design- 
ing priests. 

The  Two  Isaiahs 

There  is  one  more  question  as  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment books  which  might  be  mentioned  before  I  go 
on  to  give  illustrations  of  the  application  of  the 
foregoing  reasoning  to  the  scholarly  study  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  is  in  regard  to  the  long  book 
of  Isaiah. 

It  is  evident  that  there  were  at  least  two  authors 
of  Isaiah.     The  book  is  broken  in  two  at  the  for- 


The  Old  Testament  39 

tieth  chapter.  One  Isaiah  lived  in  the  8th  century 
B.  C,  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  (See  Isai.  1:1.) 
Another  author  lived  in  the  6th  century  B.  C,  in 
the  time  of  Cyrus  the  Great.  (See  Isai.  45:  i.) 
Again,  the  "virgin"  who  was  to  conceive  and  bear 
a  son  (Isaiah  7:14)  is  simply  Septuagint  Greek 
for  a  Hebrew  word  meaning  "young  woman",  and 
is  the  mother  mentioned  in  the  next  chapter,  Isai. 
8:  3  {not, — as  supposed  by  the  early  Christian  who 
wrote  Matt,  i :  23,  quoted  from  his  Greek  Septua- 
gint,— the  mother  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth).  The 
person  referred  to  in  chapters  49  and  53,  and 
thought  to  be  Christ,  seems  to  rational  scholars  an 
impersonation  of  the  exiled  nation  of  Israel  (cf. 
Isai.  44:  I  and  2),  about  to  be  restored  to  Jeru- 
salem by  the  great  Cyrus  (Isai.  44:28). 


CHAPTER  III 

ILLUSTRATIONS      OF      THE      APPLICATION      OF      THE 

FOREGOING    FACTS    TO    THE    STUDY    OF    THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 

I.     References    to   Magic,    Witchcraft   and 
Divination  in  the  Old  Testament 

MAGIC  as  distinct  from  enchantments  and 
witchcraft  seems  to  have  been  but  little  prac- 
ticed by  the  Hebrews.  The  magic  attributed  to 
Aaron  in  Exodus  7  and  8  may  have  come  from 
eastern  practices  in  the  mind  of  the  narrator. 
Snake-charming  is  alluded  to  in  Jeremiah  (8:  17.) 
As  witchcraft  and  divination  are  the  outgrowth 
of  the  same  feeling  as  that  which  regards  dreams 
as  supernatural,  a  word  as  to  dreams:  Divination 
from  dreams  is  recognized  as  legitimate  (see  Num- 
bers 12:6)  from  the  time  of  the  book  of  Daniel 
(written,  as  is  supposed,  about  170  B.  C.)  back 
through  that  of  Job  (see  Job  4:  13,  7:  14,  33:  15) 
to  the  time  of  Solomon  ( I  Kings  3:5)  and  of 
Saul  (I  Sam.  28:6.)  Compare  the  visions  in  the 
40 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  41 

books  of  Daniel  and  Ezekiel.  In  Micah  (3:5-7) 
"ye  shall  have  no  vision"  is  spoken  of  as  a  national 
calamity.  In  Joel  we  have  Jehovah's  promise  that 
through  the  outpouring  of  his  spirit  "your  old  men 
shall  dream  dreams,"  "your  young  men  shall  see 
visions."  Deuteronomy  13:  i  fol.  w^arns  the  people 
against  the  dreams  of  false  prophets.  Compare  Jer. 
14:  14,  23:  25,  29:  8-9;  Ezekiel  13:6,  22:  28;  and 
Zech.   10:2. 

Next,  before  considering  witchcraft,  etc.,  among 
the  Hebrews,  it  is  well  to  recollect  that  they  were 
surrounded  by  superstitious  nations — the  Philistines 
(I  Sam.  6:2),  Moabites,  Edomites  and  Phoeni- 
cians (Jer.  27:9  and  10),  Egyptians  (Isai.  19:3), 
Babylonians  (Ezek.  21:21  fol. — with  which  com- 
pare Isai.  47:12  and  13).  Jeremiah  warns  his 
people  against  the  way  of  the  nations  (Jer.  10:2) 
and  Deuteronomy  says  (18:  12)  "because  of  these 
abominations  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  drive  them 
out  from  before  thee." 

Therefore,  passing  to  the  Hebrews,  we  may  ex- 
pect to  find  many  of  them,  in  the  words  of  Isaiah 
(2:6),  "filled  with  magic"  and  that  they  "are 
sooth-sayers  like  the  Philistines."  That  divination 
by  signs  was  common  among  the  early  Hebrews  is 
shown  by  such  incidents  as  that  of  Gideon's  fleece 
(Jud.   6:37)    and   the  sound  of  marching  in   the 


42  Facts  About  the  Bible 

tops  of  the  mulberry  trees  (II  Sam.  5:  24).  Com- 
pare I  Sam.  14:  9  and  10:  9.  Witchcraft,  too,  was 
practised  in  early  days.  But  this  practice  is  also 
early  disapproved  of — Saul,  probably  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Samuel,  put  away  "those  that  had  fa- 
miliar spirits,  and  the  wizards,  out  of  the  land." 
(I  Sam.  28:3.)  According  to  the  early  law  of 
Exodus  22:  18  a  sorceress  should  not  be  permitted 
to  live.  Jezebel,  however,  among  her  many  whore- 
doms, practiced  witchcraft  (II  Kings  9:22).  So 
did  as  late  a  king  as  Manasseh  (II  Kings  21:6). 
Micah  (5:12)  speaks  of  witchcrafts.  And  when 
King  Josiah  made  his  reforms  he  found  wizards 
and  "them  that  had  familiar  spirits."  (II  Kings 
23:24).  Even  as  late  as  the  codification  of  the 
Law  of  Holiness  (Lev.  chaps.  17-26,  codified  prob- 
ably about  550  B.  C.)  we  find  the  warning:  "Turn 
ye  not  unto  them  that  have  familiar  spirits,  nor 
unto  the  wizards."  (Lev.  19:31).  But  the 
severity  of  the  punishment  of  such  transgression  (to 
be  cut  off  from  among  the  people.  Lev.  20:  6),  and 
the  law  of  stoning  witches  and  wizards  to  death 
(Lev.  20:27)  suggest  that  witchcraft  had  been 
nearly  stamped  out  at  this  time. 

Manasseh  "made  his  son  to  pass  through  the  fire, 
and  practiced  augury,  and  used  enchantments,  and 
dealt  with  them  that  had  familiar  spirits,  and  with 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  43 

wizards."  (II  Kings  21:6).  Compare  the  paral- 
lel passage  in  Deuteronomy  18:  10  and  11.  Also 
II  Kings  17:  17.  It  is  only  natural  that  witchcraft 
should  be  connected  closely  with  all  sorts  of  super- 
stition. The  law  "ye  shall  not  eat  anything  with 
the  blood:  neither  shall  ye  use  enchantments,  nor 
practice  augury"  (Lev.  19:26)  stands  close  to  the 
prohibition  of  witchcraft  (Lev.  19:31-) 

An  examination  of  the  passages  cited  indicates 
that  most  of  the  superstition  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment turns  about  divination,  whether  by  witches 
or  dreamers.  The  most  remarkable  thing  in  the 
story  of  the  witch  of  Endor  seems  to  be  this  passage : 

**I  see  Elohim  [a  Hebrew  word  meaning  *a  god' 
or  'gods']  coming  up  out  of  the  earth."  (See  I 
Sam.  28:  13  and  compare  Isai.  29:4;  "thy  speech 
shall  be  low  out  of  the  dust;  and  thy  voice  shall 
be  as  of  one  that  hath  a  familiar  spirit,  out  of  the 
ground").  This  points  to  the  custom  of  necrom- 
ancy, noticed  in  Deut.  18:  11,  and  brought  out  in 
Isai.  8:19 — "on  behalf  of  the  living  should  they 
seek  unto  the  dead?"  Thus  the  Hebrews  of  early 
days  appear  to  have  invoked  the  spirits  of  the 
dead  up  from  the  under-world,  and  these  spirits 
were  regarded  as  Elohim.  In  early  times,  before 
any  definite  form  of  religion  was  established,  revela- 
tion was  sought  from  any  source.     The  very  king 


44  Facts  About  the  Bible 

who  at  one  moment  banishes  witches,  at  the  next 
moment  seeks  them.  (See  I  Sam.  28).  Despite 
the  early  law  in  Exodus  22:18,  witchcraft  is  prac- 
ticed in  Jerusalem  till  the  time  of  Josiah  (II  Kings 
23:24).  Ezekiel  describes  the  abominations  of 
the  chambers  of  imagery  (Ezek.  8).  Even  when 
the  Law  of  Holiness  was  codified  some  traces  of 
such  things  remained. 

With  the  growth  of  religion  the  indiscriminate 
resorting  to  Elohim  was  more  and  more  discoun- 
tenanced. Mental  vision  took  the  place  of  me- 
chanical enchantment.  The  prophets  protested 
against  superstition.  Ezekiel  says:  "ye  shall  no 
more  see  vanity,  nor  divine  divinations:  and  I  will 
deliver  my  people  out  of  your  hand;  and  ye  shall 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord."  (13:23  and  compare 
verse  18).  Isaiah  44:24  and  25  says:  "I  am  the 
Lord  .  .  .  that  frustrateth  the  tokens  of  the  liars, 
and  maketh  diviners  mad."  Compare  also  the  Law 
of  Holiness,  Lev.  19:31:  "seek  them  [witches  and 
wizards]  not  out,  to  be  defiled  by  them:  I  am  the 
Lord  your  God."  Isai.  8:  19  and  20  says:  "when 
they  shall  say  unto  you.  Seek  unto  them  that  have 
familiar  spirits  and  unto  the  wizards,  that  chirp 
and  that  mutter:  should  not  a  people  seek  unto 
their   God?   on   behalf   of   the  living  should    they 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  45 

seek  unto  the  dead?     To  the  Law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony!" 


II.     The  Song  of  Deborah  (Judges  Chap.  5). 

This  is  probably  one  of  the  oldest  pieces  of  writ- 
ing in  the  Bible.  All  national  literatures  are  apt 
to  begin  with  ballads  or  songs  about  national  heroes. 
The  text  of  Judges  chap.  5  is  very  old,  and  is  cor- 
rupted: for  example,  in  verse  5,  "Even  yon  Sinai" 
is  probably  a  note  added  by  a  comparatively  late 
scribe. 

The  chief  point  to  notice  is  that  Jahweh  (trans- 
lated "Lord"),  in  this  early  bit  of  literature,  is 
already  recognized  as  the  God  of  Israel.  See  verses 
3  and  5.  But  that  Jahweh  was  not  yet  thought  of 
as  being  so  powerful  as  he  is  represented  to  be  by 
the  later  author  of  Judges,  chap.  4,  where  (verse 
6)  he  takes  the  initiative  and  (verses  15  and  23) 
discomfits  Sisera  before  the  children  of  Israel,  is 
shown  by  chap.  5;  7  (Deborah  takes  the  initiative 
herself)  and  by  chap.  5:23  and  31  (Jahweh  has 
enemies  against  whom  he  needs  help).  But  even 
in  the  early  daj^s  he  was  thought  of  as  being  a 
terrible  God,  withal:  for  the  earth  trembled,  the 
clouds  dropped   water,   and   the  mountains  flowed 


46  Facts  About  the  Bible 

down  at  his  presence.  As  terrible  as  Olympian 
Zeus!  It  is  hard  to  think  that  Israel's  adoption  of 
"a  great  variety  of  shrines  and  images"  meant  a 
higher  worship  than  this  of  the  mountain  God. 
(But  compare  Schultz's  Old  Testament  Theology 
vol.  I,  p.  207). 

Piepenbring  remarks  (Theol.  Old  Test.,  p.  120)  : 
"The  metaphysical  attribute  that  takes  place  of  all 
others,  and  is  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  power  of  God."  This  is  at- 
tested by  the  mention  of  the  early  book  of  the 
"Wars  of  Jahweh"  in  Numbers  21:14,  by  the 
martial  song  of  Exodus  15,  and  by  this  song  of 
Deborah. 

In  verse  23  the  angel  of  Jahw^eh  bids  the  people 
curse  the  inhabitants  of  Meroz  "because  they  came 
not  to  the  help  of  the  Lord."  But  the  revolting 
cruelty  of  Hebrew  fiction,  such  as  one  meets  in 
Joshua  6:21,  7:25,  8:26,  is  shown  by  the  spirit 
of  Deborah's  song  to  be  imaginary  rather  than  real. 
Jahweh  is  a  powerful  god  of  war,  but  his  people 
are  not  mere  savages.  "So  let  all  thine  enemies 
perish,  O  Lord:  But  let  them  that  love  him  be  as 
the  sun  when  he  goeth  forth  in  his  might/'  The 
ethics  of  Jahw^eh's  people  are  severe  but  not  alto- 
gether brutal.  "Blessed  above  women  shall  Jael 
be" — the  woman   who   treacherously   slew   Sisera: 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  47 

but  observe,  it  is  a  woman  who  is  to  be  blessed. 
Hannah  Duston,  who  slew  her  sleeping  captors 
with  a  tomahawk,  has  a  monument  to  her  memory 
in  Haverhill,  Mass.  Among  the  princes  (verse 
15)  and  governors  (verse  9)  and  nobles  (verse 
13)  of  the  ten  tribes  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
song,  stands  Deborah,  a  mother*  in  Israel,  a  leader 
of  the  people,  the  equal  of  Barak.  Such  recognition 
of  women  in  the  early  history  of  a  nation  argues 
well  for  national  ethics. 

ni.     The  Story  of  Samson 

"The  story  of  Samson  (Judges  XHI-XVI)  is 
so  full  of  legend  that  it  is  hard  to  extract  history 
from  it.  Some  writers  suppose  that  it  is  all  a 
sun-myth,  like  the  story  of  Hercules.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  it  is  a  mixture  of  history,  legend  and 
myth."  (Toy's  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  30.)  Con- 
rad Schwenck  in  "Die  Mythologie  der  Semiten" 
(1855)  pp.  277  and  278,  shows  how  the  Canaanitish 
Moloch,  called  by  the  Tyrians  Melcart,  came  over 
under  this  name  to  Greece  and  "became  so  woven 
into  the  stories  of  Hercules  that  he  passed  as  the 

*  That    Deborah    was    a    "prophetess"     (Judges  chap. 

4:4   and    5)    may   be    the   fiction   of   a    later   day.  If   a 

prophetess,  she  was  doubtless  like  Samuel,  a  seer. 
(See  I  Samuel  9:9). 


48  Facts  About  the  Bible 

Tyrian  Hercules."  Professor  Moore  of  Andover, 
in  his  late  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Judges, 
pp.  364  and  365,  says  that  in  view  of  Samson's 
nearness  to  Beth-Shemesh  (the  name  of  the  place 
is  Hebrew  for  "house  of  the  Sun")  his  name  may 
perhaps  be  etymologically  "sun-worshipper."  Per- 
haps this  meant  the  worshipper  of  Moloch. 

But  whatever  be  the  most  probable  view  of  the 
sun-myth  theory,  the  storj^  of  Samson  affords  some 
glimpses  into  primitive  Hebrew  religion.  As  re* 
gards  the  angel  of  Jahweh  appearing  in  the  shape 
of  a  man  (Judges  13:  3)  we  have  only  to  compare 
Judges  chap.  6:12  fol..  Gen.  18:2  fol..  Josh.  5: 
13  fol.,  to  see  that  the  idea  was  common  among  the 
early  Hebrews.  That  his  appearance  is  "terrible" 
(Judges  13:6)  is  corroborated  in  Joshua's  vision 
of  the  captain  of  the  Lord's  host  with  his  drawn 
sword.  Indeed,  the  early  belief  seems  to  have  been 
that  to  behold  such  a  divine  apparition  meant  death. 
(Judges  6:22;  and  13:22). 

In  both  the  Gideon  and  the  Samson  story,  sac- 
rifice is  offered  on  the  bare  rock,  where  the  divine 
message  is  received.  (Judges  6:20;  13:19). 
Compare  W.  Robertson  Smith's  Religion  of  the 
SemiteSj  pp.  116  and  378.  Smith  remarks  in  a 
footnote:  "the  more  modern  story  of  Gideon's  of- 
fering gives  the  modern  ritual."     See  Judges  6:26. 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  49 

So,  too,  in  Judges  13:20  an  altar  is  mentioned. 
Gideon  offered  a  "kid  and  unleavened  cakes  of  an 
ephah  of  meal,"  and  Manoah  a  kid  and  a  meal 
offering.  Both  were  burnt  offerings  and  in  both 
cases  the  angel  of  the  Lord  departs  out  of  sight 
when  the  sacrifice  is  performed,  thus  proving  his 
divine  nature. 

Such  things  bring  us  close  to  the  times  of  primi- 
tive religion  like  that  ascribed  to  Abraham  in  the 
book  of  Genesis.  In  the  Samson  stories  in  the 
phrase  "Nazarite  unto  God"  (Elohim)  in  which 
only  does  the  word  Nazarite  occur  (Judges  13:5, 
7;  16:17),  we  may  have  another  indication  of 
very  primitive  religious  ideas.  This  because  of  the 
word  Elohim  instead  of  Jahweh.  In  Amos  2:11 
fol.  it  is  Jahweh  who  complains  that  his  Nazarites 
have  been  corrupted.  In  "Elohim"  (a  plural  form 
meaning  "god"  or  "gods")  there  seems  to  be  an 
indication  of  ancient  polytheism;  and  so  we  may 
class  the  Nazarites  with  the  early  religionists  among 
Semites  and  Greeks  alike  who  offered  their  hair  to 
their  gods.  See  Smith,  ibid.,  page  332  and  the  pre- 
ceding pages. 

Of  course,  a  custom  that  continued  down  to  the 
time  of  Christ  (see  Lam.  4:7  and  8,  i  Mace.  3:49, 
Luke  1:15,  Acts  21:24,  with  which  compare 
Josephus   B.    J.    II    15:1)    would    undergo    some 


50  Facts  About  the  Bible 

change.  The  sacredness  of  the  hair  (I  Sam.  i :  ii, 
Jud.  13:5  and  16:17)  becomes  in  the  time  of 
Amos  associated  with  "total  abstinence" — see  Amos 
2:11  and  12 — a  thing  enjoined  upon  Samson's 
mother  during  pregnancy,  though  not  upon  Sam- 
son himself.  By  the  time  Numbers,  chap.  6,  was 
written,  the  ritualists  had  involved  the  Nazarite 
in  purification  and  sacrifices;  but  even  here  the 
ancient  phrase  "Nazarite  unto  Elohim"  finds  an 
echo  in  verse  7,  "separation  unto  Elohim." 

IV.     Religious    Life    and    Belief    of    David 
(About  iooo  B.  C.) 

No  doubt  many  passages  in  Samuel  are  to  be 
rejected  along  with  Chronicles  as  unauthentic.  For 
example,  I  Sam.  21:  1-9;  II  Sam.  7;  and  II  Sam. 
12:20,  where  "the  house  of  the  Lord"  is  men- 
tioned; also  many  embellishments  of  the  Goliath 
story. 

Using  the  evidence  as  best  we  can,  we  may  first 
inquire  what  were  David's  surroundings.  The  He- 
brews felt  their  tribal  kinship  strongly  (II  Sam.  5 :  i 
and  19:  12  and  13).  It  was  still  an  age  of  blood 
and  savagery.  (II  Sam.  i :  16;  3 :  27;  14:  11 ;  16: 
8;  21:1;  I  Sam.  18:7  and  27  and  27:9).  Re- 
ligious life  is  not  organized — even  Samuel  goes  to 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  51 

Bethlehem  with  a  heifer  to  sacrifice  (I  Sam.  16:  2) 
— witchcraft  is  practiced  (I  Sam.  28) — David 
swears  by  Elohim  (I  Sam.  25:22,  II  Sam.  3:35) 
— he  goes  to  his  own  yearly  sacrifice  (I  Sam.  20:  6) 
— and  he  keeps  teraphim  (household  god)  (I  Sam. 
19:16).  Indeed,  there  seems  to  be  a  general  recog- 
nition of  more  gods  than  Jahweh.  "The  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  God"  (II  Sam.  15:24  fol.)  is 
called  the  ark  of  Elohim  and  the  ark  of  Jahweh  in- 
discriminately in  II  Sam.  chap.  6.  David  goes  to 
live  with  Achish  and  can  consider  it  a  compliment 
to  be  called  *'as  an  angel  of  Elohim."  (I  Sam. 
29:9:  compare,  however,  chap.  26:  19).  Perhaps 
the  tribal  worship  of  Jahweh  was  not  yet  fully 
established,  for  Elohim-worship  is  spoken  of  in  II 
Sam.  15:32,  and  indicated  by  the  speech  of  Joab 
in  II  Sam.  10:  12 — 'let  us  play  the  men  for  our 
people,  and  for  the  cities  of  our  Elohim;  and  Jah- 
weh do  that  which  seemeth  him  good." 

But,  as  in  the  name  of  Jonathan  (Hebrew  for 
"gift  of  Jahweh")  so  in  the  names  of  David's  sons, 
Adonijah  and  Jedidiah,  we  have  clear  etymologi- 
cal evidence  of  Jahweh-worship  in  the  nation.  No 
doubt  the  priests,  Zadok  and  Abiathar  (see  I  Sam. 
23:  9  fol.  and  30:  7  fol.)  stood  up  for  the  national 
god.  Nathan  and  Gad  were  ready  to  strengthen 
the  King's  allegiance  to  Jahweh.     In  fact,  during 


52  Facts  About  the  Bible 

David's  long  reign  his  religious  ideas  must  have 
developed  a  good  deal,  and  the  influence  of  such 
men  as  the  Jahweh-prophets  Gad  and  Nathan  must 
have  been  considerable.  As  a  young  man  he  swears 
by  Elohim  (I  Sam.  25:22,  II  Sam.  3:35);  as 
king  at  Hebron  he  makes  a  covenant  with  the  tribes 
of  Israel  ''before  Jahweh"  (II  Sam.  5:3).  At  his 
death  he  recalls  his  oath  by  Jahweh.  (I  Kings 
2:8). 

His  chief  business  with  Jahweh  appears  to  have 
been  "to  inquire  of  the  Lord" — that  is,  to  practice 
augury.  (I  Sam.  23:2  and  4,  comparing  22:  13; 
also  23 :  9  fol. ;  30 :  8 ;  II  Sam.  2 :  i ;  5  :  19  and  23 ) . 
He  prayed  when  in  great  misfortune.  (See  his 
bitter  prayer  when  fleeing  from  Absalom,  II  Sam. 
15:  31,  and  his  prayer  for  the  putting  away  of  his 
iniquit}^  for  numbering  the  people,  and  the  one  of- 
fered for  stopping  the  plague,  II  Sam.  24:  10  and 

17). 

In  II  Sam.  6:  17-19  is  an  account  of  a  national 
feast  of  sacrifice  in  honor  of  Jahweh — "David  of- 
fered burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings  before  the 
Lord  ...  he  blessed  the  people  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  he  dealt  among  all  the  peo- 
ple, even  among  the  whole  multitude  of  Israel, 
both  to  men  and  women,  to  every  one  a  cake  of 
bread,  and  a  portion  of  flesh,  and  a  cake  of  raisins." 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  53 

This  was  the  occasion  of  the  bringing  of  the  ark 
into  Jerusalem — when  *'he  sacrificed  an  ox  and  a 
fatling"  and  danced  mightily  before  the  Lord. 

At  the  death  of  Jonathan  and  Saul  and  the  peo- 
ple of  Jahweh  (II  Sam.  1:12)  David  mourned; 
and  afterward  at  the  death  of  Abner  (II  Sam.  3 :  33 
and  34).  In  the  case  of  Bathsheba's  child,  he  fasted 
and  **lay  all  night  upon  the  earth"  and  besought 
Elohim   (II  Sam.  12:  16  and  compare  13:31). 

In  the  days  of  David  everybody's  religion  was 
probably  as  simple  as  his.  His  morals  were  prob- 
ably like  those  of  neighboring  kings,  not  much  bet- 
ter and  not  much  worse,  and  would  probably  have 
been  worse  than  they  were  had  he  had  no  religion 
at  all.  He  was  generous,  poetical,  attractive.  He 
is  called  a  man  after  God's  own  heart;  for  by  his 
zeal  and  administrative  ability  he  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  religious  organization,  thus  achieving  a 
reputation  like  that  of  Moses. 

V.     Conceptions    of    God    and    Religion    in 
Amos.     (750  B.  C.) 

Amos  says  "the  Lord  took  me  from  following 
the  flock,  and  the  Lord  said  unto  me.  Go,  prophesy 
unto  my  people  Israel"  (chap.  7:  15).  The  bur- 
den of  his  message  was, — "Behold,  the  eyes  of  the 


54  Facts  About  the  Bible 

Lord  God  are  upon  the  sinful  kingdom"    (9:8). 

First,  as  to  the  matter  of  interpolation  in  this 
earliest  of  the  prophetical  books.  All  through  He- 
brew writing  ante-dating  II  Isaiah  we  find  no  ref- 
erence to  Jahweh  as  the  Creator  of  the  world.  See 
Hosea,  I  Isaiah,  Micah,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 
Therefore  we  may  strike  out  Amos  4:  13,  5:8  and 
9,  9 :  6  as  pretty  certainly  interpolations.  The  simi- 
larity between  5 :  8  and  9  and  the  corresponding 
passage  in  Job  9:8  and  9  (a  later  writing  than 
Amos)  (compare  also  Job  38:31)  is  so  striking 
that  the  former — wedged  in  as  it  is  with  no  appar- 
ent connection  with  the  context — seems  to  be  cer- 
tainly an  interpolation.  But  though  Jahweh  may 
not  have  been  thus  early  represented  as  creator  of 
heaven  and  earth,  that  he  was  by  Amos  conceived 
to  have  power  in  the  same  is  proved  by  5 :  20 ;  8:9; 
9:2. 

At  the  time  of  Amos,  Jahweh  is  still  popularly 
considered  the  tribe  God  of  Israel  (7:8,  7:15 — 
and  compare  9:15;  4:11  and  12 — "prepare  to 
meet  thy  God,  O  Israel").  He  had  led  His  people 
up  "out  of  the  land  of  Egypt",  through  the  wilder- 
ness, and  had  dispossessed  the  Amorite  before  them 
(2:9  and  10 ;  3 :  i ;  5:25;  9:7.)  "You  only  have 
I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth"  (3:2). 

Jahweh-worship  in  the  time  of  Amos  was  not  yet 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  55 

centralized  at  Jerusalem  (3:14;  4:4;  5- 5't  8: 
14)  ;  but  Amos  appears  to  have  battled  for  the 
cause  of  centralization.  Not  only  does  he  assume 
that  Zion  is  the  proper  seat  of  Jahweh,  whence  he 
utters  his  voice  to  the  nation  (1:2);  he  speaks 
of  swearing  by  the  sin  of  Samaria  (8:  14),  he 
attacks  the  altars  of  Bethel  (3:  14),  and  predicts 
that  "the  high  places  of  Isaac  shall  be  desolate,  and 
the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  shall  be  laid  waste"  (7:9). 
Amos  represents  Jahweh  as  extending  his  authority 
even  over  the  surrounding  Gentiles  ( i :  3  to  2 :  i ) . 
Together  with  this  higher  conception  of  the  old 
tribal  Jahweh  came  the  idea  that  his  worship  should 
consist  of  righteousness,  not  feast  and  sacrifice — 
"I  hate,  I  despise  your  feasts,  and  I  will  take  no 
delight  in  your  solemn  assemblies  (compare  8:  10). 
.  .  .  Take  thou  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy 
songs;  for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols. 
But  let  judgment  roll  down  as  waters^  and  right- 
eousness as  a  mighty  stream"  (5:21-23).  Israel  is 
morally  corrupt  (2:6  fol.  and  12;  3:10;  5:12; 
8:5).  She  is  sunk  in  luxury  (6:1  fol.).  She 
must  return  to  the  service  of  her  righteous  God 
(4:6-11).  "Seek  good  and  not  evil,  that  ye  may 
live"  (5:  14).  "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  that  I  will  send  a  famine  in  the  land, 
not   a    famine   of   bread,    nor   a   thirst    for   water, 


56  Facts  About  the  Bible 

but  of  hearing  the  words  of  the  Lord"  (8:  ii). 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  old  tribal  unity  re- 
mains; for  Amos  preaches  to  the  nation  at  large  as 
sinful,  rather  than  to  individual  sinners.  Amos  is 
properly  classed  among  those  men  of  his  nation  who 
founded  ethical  monotheism.  He  understands  all 
the  phases  of  his  countrymen's  beliefs,  and  he  urges 
them  on  toward  the  conception  of  a  supreme  God 
of  righteousness. 

VI.    The  Growth  of  the  Law 

§  I.  Definition: — In  the  theocracy  established 
by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  continuing  to  the  time 
of  Josephus  (70  A.  D.),  ''The  Law"  meant  the 
Pentateuch,  "the  book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,"  (Neh. 
8:1).  This  ''Jewish  Law  was  ...  an  attempt 
to  define  all  the  beliefs  and  acts  of  life."  (Prof. 
Toy,  in  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  239).  It 
"was  originally  the  divine  word  which  came  to  the 
prophets  respecting  the  moral,  religious  and  po- 
litical condition  of  the  nation."     (Ibid.  p.  69). 

§  2.  Befoj-e  Samuel: — To  begin  with  it  will  be 
well  to  place  ourselves  in  the  earliest  historic  times, 
when  Jahweh  was  to  the  Hebrews  simply  what  they 
conceived  Chemosh  to  be  to  the  Ammonites,  a  na- 
tional god   (Jud.   11:24).     *'Who  is  like  thee,  O 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  57 

Jahweh,  among  the  gods"  are  words  of  the  old 
song  in  Exodus  15.  The  whole  people  is  holy  to 
Jahweh,  as  is  shown  by  the  ancient  rite  of  circum- 
cision (II  Sam.  1:20)  and  the  idea  of  tribal  soli- 
darity (cf.  Achan's  trespass,  for  which  the  whole 
people  suffer,  Josh.  7 :  20  fol. ;  compare  I  Sam. 
14:  38  fol.)  The  religiousness  of  early  Hebrew  life 
comes  out  in  the  stories  of  Gideon  and  Manoah, 
who  offer  sacrifice  on  the  bare  rock  without  the 
formality  of  an  altar  (Jud.  6:20,  13:  19)  ;  in  the 
worship  by  families  (I  Sam.  20:  6)  ;  in  the  vow  of 
Jephthah  (Jud.  11:35) — '*I  have  opened  my 
mouth  unto  the  Lord,  and  I  cannot  go  back";  in 
the  consecration  of  the  Nazarite  (Jud.  16:  17  and 
13:5  and  I  Sam.  i:ii).  The  figure  of  Mel- 
chizedek  seems  to  fit  in  well  with  these  early  times. 
(Gen.   14:  18.) 

Apparently,  the  religious  genius  of  the  Hebrews 
began  to  manifest  itself  early.  If  we  adopt  the 
view  of  Driver  (Introd.  p.  144)  and  Schultz  (O.  T. 
TheoL,  p.  220),  we  should  treat  Ex.  18:  13-27  as 
an  historical  passage,  and  hence  conclude  that  Moses 
was  the  first  expounder  of  The  Law.  Certainly, 
Hebrew  tradition  points  to  him  as  the  first  law- 
giver. See  Hos.  11:  i;  12:13;  13:4;  and  the 
ancient  song  of  ''the  well  whereof  the  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,  Gather  the  people  together  and  I  will 


58  Facts  About  the  Bible 

give  them  water" — for  the  song  reads,  if  we  adopt 
the  marginal  rendering:  "Spring  up,  O  well;  sing 
ye  unto  it:  The  well  which  the  princes  digged, 
which  the  nobles  of  the  people  delved,  by  order  of 
the  lawgiver  with  their  staves."    (Num.  21 :  16-18). 

After  Moses  came  the  governors  of  Israel  men- 
tioned in  the  song  of  Deborah  (Jud.  5:9.)  Such 
governors  must  have  taught  a  kind  of  Law.  So 
men  learned  to  "Bless  the  Lord"  (Jud.  5:2,  9) 
and  to  "rehearse  the  righteous  acts  of  the  Lord" 
(Jud.  5:  11).  "Righteous  acts  of  the  Lord"  imply 
a  Law  of  righteousness,  whether  written  or  oral, 
among  the  Lord's  people. 

§  3.  Written  Law  in  Early  Ti?nes: — Starting 
with  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  written  before  620 
B.  C,  we  can  trace  back  a  written  law  through 
the  time  of  Hosea  (about  750  B.  C).  Hosea  8:  12 
certainly  speaks  of  written  law.  No  doubt  Hosea 
was  numbered  among  those  prophets  by  whose 
word  of  mouth  "the  Lord  testified  unto  Israel  and 
unto  Judah."  (II  Kings  17:  13.)  But  the  Lord 
said:  "keep  my  commandments  and  my  statutes,  ac- 
cording to  all  the  law  which  I  commanded  your 
fathers/'  (Ibid.)  If  this  passage  in  II  Kings  is  to 
be  depended  on  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that 
Ex.  20:23-23:  19  (which  has  every  appearance  of 
being  the  earliest  written  law  in  the  Old  Testa- 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  59 


ment)  was  extant  in  the  days  of  Hosea  as  an  heir- 
loom from  the  fathers,  and  "sent  ...  by  the  hand 
of  my  servants  the  prophets."  (See  the  passage  in 
II  Kings).  These  prophets  may  have  handed  down 
the  law  from  the  governors  of  the  days  of  Deb- 
orah. 

§  4.  The  Rise  of  Prophets: — In  the  time  of 
David  (about  1000  B.  C.)  the  functions  of  priests 
(II  Sam.  8:  17;  20:25  and  26)  were  different  ap- 
parently from  those  of  prophets  (see  stories  of 
Nathan  and  Gad,  II  Sam.  12  and  24:11).  As 
far  back  as  we  can  trace  priests  they  are  priests  still 
and  not  prophets  (the  company  at  Nob,  slain  by 
Saul,  I  Sam.  22:  11  fol.,  Eli  and  his  sons,  I  Sam.  i 
fol.,  the  Levite  of  Judges  ij,  Jethro,  the  priest  of 
Midian,  Ex.  18).  The  earliest  prophets,  on  the 
other  hand,  appear  to  have  been  little  different 
from  priests.  Their  successors  seem  to  have  be- 
come more  and  more  distinct  from  priests  till  in 
the  times  of  Amos  and  Hosea  prophets  and  priests 
are  in  open  conflict. 

The  first  historical  prophet  is  Samuel,  priest  as 
well  as  prophet.  In  I  Sam.  7:5,  9,  16,  17,  he 
appears  as  a  priest.  In  the  anointing  of  Saul  and 
David  he  appears  as  something  more.  In  his  slay- 
ing of  Agag  (I  Sam.  15:33)  he  appears  as  a 
prophet  of  Jahweh. 


6o  Facts  About  the  Bible 

Elijah  was  very  little  of  a  priest.  He  treated 
Ahab  with  a  high  hand,  as  Samuel  did  Saul;  he 
slew  the  priests  of  Baal;  he  threatened  the  land 
with  drought;  he  acted  under  the  consciousness  of 
divine  guidance. 

Elisha  collected  about  himself  a  school  of  prophets 
(II  Kings  6:  1-5,)  one  of  whom  he  sent  to  anoint 
the  usurper  Jehu   (II  Kings  9:  i   fol.) 

When  the  people  had  become  securely  settled  in 
Canaan  and  their  ideas  had  begun  to  grow,  the 
priesthood  continued  in  the  conservative  ways  of  the 
forefathers  while  the  more  liberal  and  advanced 
religious  thought  was  represented  by  the  teaching 
of  the  prophets.  So  there  arose  the  prophetic  word 
which  became  Law. 

§  5.  Amos  and  Hosea: — It  is  nearly  a  hundred 
years  after  Elisha  that  we  reach  the  sure  historical 
ground  of  prophetic  writing  in  Amos  and  Hosea. 
They  both  condemn  priestcraft.  (See  Amos  4:4; 
5:5;  5:20-22;  7:10-17;  8:11-14;  9:1;  Hosea 
4:6-10,  15;  5:  i;  6:9;  8:5;  9:4;  10:5).  They 
were  "concerned  with  no  mere  lists  of  statutes 
touching  ritual  and  cleanliness,  but  with  the  eternal 
principles  of  truth,  justice  and  mercy."  (See  Ryle's 
Old  Testament  Canon,  p.  33).  Such  principles 
were  what  they  meant  by  Law.  (Amos  2:4;  Hosea 
4:6;  8:  I,  12). 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  6i 

Amos,  with  his  lofty  conception  of  the  righteous 
Lord  God,  and  Hosea  with  his  conception  of  the 
one  true  God,  God  of  righteousness  and  mercy, 
laid  the  foundation  for  the  highest  moral  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Their  teaching  was  taken  up  into 
the  thought  of  their  countrymen,  and  is  embodied 
in  Deuteronomy. 

§6.  Exodus  20: 23-23:  ig: — Through  Amos 
and  Hosea  we  may  attempt  to  fix  a  date  for  the 
earliest  legal  code  in  the  Old  Testament,  Ex.  20: 
23-23:19.  I  have  already  cited  Hosea  8:12, 
where  reference  is  made  to  written  law.  H  Kings 
11:12  and  Isaiah  8:  20  appear  to  refer  to  the  same. 
When  I  consider  the  high  moral  development  of 
Amos  and  Hosea,  together  with  the  fact  that  the 
kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  had  by  their  day 
existed  two  hundred  years,  I  am  inclined  to  ascribe 
great  antiquity  to  Ex.  20:  23-23  :  19.  Deuteronomy 
17:8-13  points  back  to  an  ancient  custom  where 
teachers  of  the  national  religion  decide  cases  of 
civil  law,  and  this  is  decreed  in  Ex.  21:6;  22 :  8,  9, 
28.  The  state  of  affairs  represented  in  Hosea's 
condemnation  of  the  priests  as  dispensers  of  justice 
(Hos.  5:1;  4:8)  must  have  arisen  long  after  the 
formulation  of  the  statute  in  Ex.  22 :  8  and  9 ;  for 
evidently  when  this  statute  was  written  priests  were 
acceptable  as  the  regular  dispensers  of  justice.     It 


62  Facts  About  the  Bible 

may  be  objected  that  Hosea  finds  the  people  awhor- 
Ing  after  foreign  gods,  although  commanded  in  Ex. 
23:13  (cf.  22:20)  to  "make  no  mention  of  the 
name  of  other  gods."  But  if  they  did  this  in  di- 
rect disobedience  to  written  law,  we  simply  have  the 
justification  of  Hosea's  violent  language.  Hosea  in 
his  idea  of  mercy  appears  to  have  got  far  beyond 
the  rule  "eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth."  (Ex.  21: 
23-25).  Compare  Amos  2:8 — clothes  taken  in 
pledge — with  Ex.  22 :  26  and  27.  All  things  con- 
sidered, the  date  of  the  earliest  written  law  in  the 
Old  Testament,  namely,  Ex.  20:23-23:19,  may 
be  put  as  far  back  as  850  B.  C. 

This  earliest  written  code  is  the  civil  code  of  a 
religious  people.  Besides  the  passages  already  cited 
I  note  the  following: 

Direction  is  given  for  building  altars  to  Jahweh. 
Ex.  20:  24-25. 

The  "oath  of  the  Lord"  shall  witness  the  good 
faith  of  neighbors.     Ex.  22:  11. 

The  fugitive  murderer  is  to  be  taken  from  the 
altar.    Ex.  21 :  14. 

"Thou  shalt  not  sufiEer  a  sorceress  to  live."  Ex. 
22:  18. 

"He  that  sacrificeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  the 
Lord  only,  shall  be  devoted."     Ex.  22 :  20. 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  63 

"The  firstborn  of  thy  sons  shalt  thou  give  unto 
me".     Ex.  22:  29. 

"Ye  shall  be  holy  men  unto  me."    Ex.  22:  31. 

The  sabbath.     Ex.  23 :  12-cf.  21:2. 

"Three  times  in  the  year  all  thy  males  shall  ap- 
pear before  the  Lord  God."     Ex.  23:  17. 

There  is  also  in  this  early  code  a  beginning  of 
written  priestly  Law — such  as  Zephaniah  may  have 
referred  to  when  he  said  "her  priests  have  profaned 
the  sanctuary,  they  have  done  violence  to  the  Law." 
(Zeph.   3:4.)      For  example: 

"Thou  shalt  not  delay  to  offer  of  the  abundance 
of  thy  fruits,  and  of  thy  liquors."     Ex.  22:29. 

"Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice 
with  leavened  bread ;  neither  shall  the  fat  of  my 
feast  remain  all  night  until  the  morning.  The 
first  of  the  first  fruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt 
bring  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou 
shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk."  Ex. 
23:  18  and  19. 

The  law  in  regard  to  the  three  feasts.  Ex.  23: 
14-17. 

Such  is  the  early  written  code  of  a  religious 
people.  Fidelity  to  Jehovah  and  free  access  to 
him,  wherever  a  man  chose  to  build  an  altar  of 
unhewn  stones.     Simple  and  reverent  rules  for  his 


64  Facts  About  the  Bible 

worship  and  his  feasts.  Consecration  of  self  and 
children  unto  Jehovah.  More  reverence  for  jus- 
tice than  false  pity  for  the  murderer.  Indeed,  the 
purely  civil  laws  of  this  code  display  a  high  ideal 
of  morality,  as  severe  as  it  is  simple:  the  Hebrew 
servant  shall  go  free  in  the  seventh  year  if  he  so 
chooses:  he  that  smiteth  his  father,  or  his  mother, 
shall  be  surely  put  to  death:  he  that  stealeth  a 
man  shall  surely  be  put  to  death:  ye  shall  not 
afflict  any  widow  or  fatherless  child:  thou  shalt 
not  take  up  a  false  report,  nor  wrest  judgment:  a 
stranger  thou  shalt  not  oppress.  Such  ethics  prom- 
ise well  for  future  religious  development. 

§  7.  The  Law  Book  of  621  B.  C: — As  we  have 
glanced  backward  from  Amos  and  Hosea  to  the 
early  written  code,  we  may  look  forward  through 
Isaiah  (about  730  B.  C.)  to  the  elaborate  book 
of  the  Law  found  in  the  temple  by  Hilkiah  the  high 
priest  in  621  B.  C.  (See  II  Kings  22:8.)  Save 
the  law  of  love  to  one's  neighbor  (Lev.  19:  18), 
no  new  law  of  the  prophetic  kind  was  added  to  the 
Pentateuch  after  this.  The  Hebrew  nation  had  to 
realize  through  calamity  and  long  years  of  religious 
training  what  her  prophets  had  taught  her.  No 
doubt  the  words  of  Isaiah  had  much  to  do  with 
shaping  the  final  prophetic  law  as  found  in  the 
Law  Book  of  621  B.  C.    Isaiah  identified  the  "law 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  65 


of  the  Lord"  with  the  words  of  the  prophet  whose 
lips  had  been  touched  with  a  living  coal  from  off 
the  altar — with  "the  word  of  the  Lord."  (See 
Isai.  6:7;  5:24;  I-.  10;  8:16;  30:9).  He  re- 
bukes the  lying  children  who  will  not  "hear  the 
law  of  the  Lord."     (30:9-) 

In  Hilkiah's  Book  of  the  Law,  identified  as  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  substantially,  is  the  con- 
stantly recurring  phrase,  "the  Lord  thy  God."  In 
Deut.  13:4;  12:3;  14:2  is  commanded  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  alone.  Severe  punishment  is  to  be 
meted  out  to  those  who  are  false  to  him.  (13*  9, 
15,   16;  17:5;  18:20). 

The  book  contains  half  the  early  code  of  Ex. 
20:23-23:19;  and  more  elaborate  rules  of  social 
ethics  than  are  therein  to  be  found.  The  laws  of 
Deut.  22:  13-30  go  to  remedy  evils  which  Amos 
(2:7  and  8)  and  Hosea  (4:13  and  14)  depict. 
Compare  also  Amos  8 :  5 — false  weights  and  meas- 
ures— with  Deut.  25:  I3-I5- 

The  priestly  law  of  the  old  code  is  also  enlarged 
— by  a  list  of  clean  and  unclean  animals  (14:  3-20), 
a  more  elaborate  account  of  the  three  feasts  (16:  i- 
17),  and  the  law  of  tithes  (12:11,  17;  14:22, 
28;  26:  12).  A  reference  to  unwritten  priestly  law 
which  afterwards  finds  a  place  in  Leviticus  is  made 
in  24:  8. 


66  Facts  About  the  Bible 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the  po- 
litical nature  of  this  Deuteronomic  code,  written 
with  the  express  purpose  to  suppress  foreign  cults 
(12:  2,  3,  31 ;  16:  21,  22;  13:  6  fol. ;  14:  i),  and 
to  centralize  worship  at  Jerusalem,  "the  place  which 
the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name 
to  dwell  there"  [a  Hebrew  idiom  awkwardly  pre- 
served in  the  English  translation]  (12:11,  13,  5; 
14:24;  16:5;  17:  10).  Nor  will  it  be  necessary 
to  cite  at  length  the  provisions  to  meet  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  proposed  centralization  of  worship  (12: 
15,  comparing  verses  17  and  18;  18:6-8;  14:29; 
12:  18,  19;  16:  14).  In  II  Kings  23  is  a  picture 
of  the  violent  commotion  caused  by  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  Deuteronomic  code.  Compare  II  Ki. 
23:9  with  Deut.  18:6-8. 

The  leaven  of  the  prophets  had  worked  till 
idolatry  and  local  worship  of  Jehovah  were  together 
swept  from  the  face  of  the  land.  The  word  of  the 
prophets  had  become  the  written  law  of  the  people. 
The  conservative  worship  of  Jehovah  of  Amaziah's 
day  (Amos  7),  which  had  not  been  of  high  enough 
order  to  preclude  the  rise  of  Canaanitish  worship 
among  the  Hebrews  (Hosea  2),  had  given  place 
to  higher  things.  Indeed,  this  Law  created  by  the 
prophetic  teaching  of  the  eighth  century  was  a  high- 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  67 


water  mark  of  national  religious  feeling.  The 
successors  of  Josiah  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  Jahweh  till  Jerusalem  fell.     (II  Kings  23: 

32,37:24:9,19.)  .      rr.      w  4f 

§8.  How  Further  Prophetic  Teaching  Af- 
fected the  Law:— In  the  two  centuries  following 
the  first  appearance  of  Hilkiah's  book,  the  chief 
additions  to  the  written  Law  were  matters  of  ritual 
and  the  priesthood  of  this  higher  religion.  As  Well- 
hausen  says  (Hist,  of  Israel,  translation  p.  402): 
"There  was  now  in  existence  an  authority  as  ob- 
jective   as   could   be;    and    this   was   the   death   of 

prophecy."  „      1  •  j 

Jeremiah,  "the  last  of  the  prophets,  who  tried 
to  add  to  the  prophetic  Law  the  idea  of  individual 
responsibility  towards  God  (Jer.  31:29-34;  com- 
pare Deut.  5:9,  also  Deut.  24:  16),  could  scarcely 
get  a  hearing.  He  taught  by  word  of  mouth  (Jer. 
7:1-15),  and  his  prophecies  were  collected  and 
put  together  without  order  by  future  moralists. 
When  he  threatened,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord:  If  ye 
will  not  hearken  to  me,  to  walk  in  my  law,  which 
I  have  set  before  you,  to  hearken  to  the  words 
of  my  servants  the  prophets,  whom  I  send  unto 
you,  even  rising  up  early  and  sending  them,  but 
ye  have  not  hearkened;  then  will  I  make  this  house 


68  Facts  About  the  Bible 

like  Shiloh,"  the  people  could  reply:  "we  are  wise, 
and  the  law  of  the  Lord  is  with  us."  (Jer.  26:4 
and  5  and  8:8). 

Ezekiel  followed  the  more  successful  policy  when 
he  took  steps  to  develop  the  laws  of  ritual.  Well- 
hausen  calls  him  "the  connecting  link  between  the 
prophets  and  the  law."  (Ibid.  p.  421).  He  lays 
down  the  "law  of  the  house"  (43:  12),  "the  ordi- 
nances of  the  house  of  the  Lord."  (44:5).  He 
defines  the  position  of  the  Levites  "which  went 
astray  from  me."  (44:  10).  He  describes  the  Day 
of  Atonement.  (45:  18  fol.  cf.  Lev.  16).  He 
designates  the  place  of  the  guilt  offering,  the  sin  of- 
fering, and  the  meal  offering.  (46:20).  The 
east  gate  shall  be  opened  on  the  Sabbath  day  and 
the  day  of  the  new  moon.  (46:1).  In  short, 
chapters  40-46  are  devoted  to  laws  of  temple 
service. 

In  the  theocracy  of  the  future,  Ezekiel  would  re- 
vive the  old  rule  of  priestly  courts  of  justice  found 
in  Ex.  22 :  8  and  9.  See  Ezekiel  44 :  24.  The 
people  are  to  become  a  nation  with  priestly  laws: 
the  priests  "shall  teach  my  people  the  difference 
between  the  holy  and  common,  and  cause  them  to 
discern  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean." 
(44:23,  and  compare  22:26). 

Ezekiel  wrote  in  exile.     And  so  did  the  Second 


Study  of  the  Old  Testament  69 

Isaiah,  who  hailed  the  era  of  good  law:  "Hearken 
unto  me,  ye  that  know  righteousness,  the  people  in 
whose  heart  is  my  law."  (Isai.  51:7).  Again: 
"Attend  unto  me,  O  my  people;  and  give  ear  unto 
me,  O  my  nation:  for  a  law  shall  go  forth  from 
me,  and  I  will  make  my  judgment  to  rest  for  a 
light  of  the  peoples."     (Isai.  51:4). 

§  9.  The  People  of  the  Law: — Then  came  the 
return  of  the  exiles  and  the  actual  founding  of  a 
theocracy  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  based  upon  the 
"law  of  Moses."  This  the  Jews  studied  and  cher- 
ished, producing  no  great  original  prophets  till 
Jesus  came,  but  ripening  and  enriching  their  thought 
till  the  ground  was  ready  for  his  sowing.  To  this 
the  production  of  the  Psalms  bears  witness. 

Josephus  (about  100  A.  D.)  has  much  to  say 
in  praise  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  of  which  he  was 
a  member.  "Moses  did  not  make  religion  a  part 
of  virtue,  but  he  saw  and  he  ordained  other  virtues 
to  be  parts  of  religion ;  I  mean  justice,  and  forti- 
tude, and  temperance,  and  a  universal  agreement 
of  the  members  of  a  community  with  one  another." 
(II  Apion  17).  Again:  "the  Lacedemonians  and 
the  Cretans  did  teach  by  practical  exercises,  but  not 
by  words;  while  the  Athenians  and  almost  all  the 
other  Grecians  made  laws  about  what  was  to  be 
done,   or  left  undone,   but  had   no   regard   to   the 


70  Facts  About  the  Bible 

exercising  them  thereto  in  practice."  (Ibid.) 
Josephus  contrasts  this  with  the  Jewish  custom  of 
meeting  every  week  ''for  the  hearing  of  the  law." 
The  Jews  knew  their  laws,  "having  them  as  it 
were  engraven  on  our  souls."  (Chap.  19).  He 
speaks  of  the  moral  courage  which  his  countrymen 
displayed  in  adhering  to  their  laws.  (Chap.  33). 
Of  this  the  heroic  struggle  of  the  Maccabees  is  an 
illustration.  He  speaks  of  Jewish  purity  (chap. 
25),  and  of  the  proof  of  long  use  as  to  the  real 
value  of  the  Law.  ( Chap.  21).  To  conclude : 
"We  have  one  sort  of  discourse  concerning  God, 
which  is  conformable  to  our  law,  and  affirms  that 
he  sees  all  things;  as  also  we  have  but  one  way  of 
speaking  concerning  the  conduct  of  our  lives,  that 
all  other  things  ought  to  have  piety  for  their  end; 
and  this  anybody  may  hear  from  our  women  and 
servants   themselves."      (Chap.    20). 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    FORMATION    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 


N' 


External  Evidence 

'OT  till  the  third  Council  of  Carthage,  in  397 
A.  D.,  do  we  find  our  particular  collection 
of  New  Testament  books  adopted  as  the  authorita- 
tive collection  of  the  West.  (See  Westcott's  N. 
T.  Canon,  p.  439  fol.)  In  the  East  is  recognized 
to  this  day  the  Syrian  Canon,  which  omits  II  John, 
III  John,  II  Peter,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse,  but 
includes  "all  the  other  books  as  commonly  received 
without  any  addition."     (Ibid.  p.  236  fol.) 

Our  oldest  manuscripts  do  not  contain  the  New 
Testament  just  as  we  have  it.  The  Vatican  manu- 
script, assigned  to  the  fourth  century,  is  mutilated, 
so  that  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  Titus  and  Phile- 
mon are  wanting;  and  the  Apocalypse  has  been 
added  by  a  later  hand.  (See  Hammond's  Outline 
of  Textual  Crit.  p.  126).  Our  only  other  manu- 
script of  the  fourth  century,  the  Sinaitic,  contains 
our  New  Testament  entire,  with  the  addition  of 
71 


72  Facts  About  the  Bible 

the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas.  (Ibid.,  pp.  124,  125  and  40).  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus,  of  the  fifth  century,  in  addition  to  our  New 
Testament  contains  the  first  epistle  of  Clement  of 
Rome  and  a  fragment  of  his  so-called  second  epistle. 
(Ibid.,  p.  125). 

Eusebius,  the  father  of  Church  History,  describes 
the  accepted  books  of  the  New  Testament  of  his 
day  (325  A.  D.)  as  follows:  (Ecc.  Hist.  Book 
III,  chap.  25)  : 

"The  holy  quaternion  of  the  gospels;  these  are 
followed  by  'The  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles'  ; 
after  this  must  be  mentioned  the  epistles  of  Paul, 
which  are  followed  by  the  acknowledged  first 
Epistle  of  John,  as  also  the  first  of  Peter,  to  be 
admitted  in  like  manner.  After  these  is  to  be 
placed,  if  proper,  the  Revelation  of  John,  concern- 
ing which  we  shall  offer  the  different  opinions  in 
due  time.  These,  then,  are  acknowledged  as  gen- 
uine. Among  the  disputed  books,  although  they 
are  well  known  and  approved  by  many,  is  reputed 
that  called  the  Epistle  of  James  and  Jude.  Also 
the  'Second  Epistle  of  Peter,'  and  those  called  'the 
Second  and  Third  of  John,'  whether  they  are  of  the 
evangelist  or  of  some  other  of  the  same  name. 
Among  the  spurious  must  be  numbered  both  the 
books  called  'The  Acts  of  Paul,'  and  that  called 
'Pastor,'  and  the  'Revelation  of  Peter.'  Beside 
these,  the  books  called  'The  Epistle  of  Barnabas,' 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament      73 


and  what  are  called  'The  Institutions  of  the  Apos- 
tles '  Moreover,  as  I  said  before,  if  it  should  ap- 
pear right,  'The  Revelation  of  John,'  which  some, 
as  before  said,  reject,  but  others  rank  among  the 
genuine.  But  there  are  also  some  who  number 
among  these,  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
with  which  those  of  the  Hebrews  who  have  re- 
ceived Christ  are  particularly  delighted.  These  may 
be  said  to  be  all  concerning  which  there  is  any 
dispute." 

Many  other  passages  in  Eusebius  bear  upon  our 
subject.     He  says: 

Of  Mark:  "The  divine  word  having  been  estab- 
lished among  the  Romans,  the  power  of  Simon  was 
soon  extinguished  and  destroyed  together  with  the 
man.  So  greatly,  however,  did  the  splendour  of 
piety  enlighten  the  minds  of  Peter's  hearers  that 
it  was  not  sufficient  to  hear  but  once,  nor  to  receive 
the  unwritten  doctrine  of  the  gospel  of  God,  but 
they  persevered  in  every  variety  of  entreaties  to 
solicit  Mark  as  the  companion  of  Peter,  and  whose 
gospel  we  have,  that  he  should  leave  them  a  monu- 
ment of  the  doctrine  thus  orally  communicated,  in 
writing.  Nor  did  they  cease  their  solicitations  un- 
til they  had  prevailed  with  the  man,  and  thus  be- 
come the  means  of  that  history  which  is  called  the 
gospel  according  to  Mark.  They  say  also,  that 
the  apostle  (Peter)  having  ascertained  what  was 
done  by  the  revelation  of  the  spirit,  was  delighted 


74  Facts  About  the  Bible 

with  the  zealous  ardor  expressed  by  these  men,  and 
that  the  history  obtained  his  authority  for  the  pur- 
pose of  being  read  in  the  churches."  (Euseb.  Ecc. 
Hist.,  Bk.  II,  chap.  15.) 

Of  Luke:  "Luke,  who  was  born  at  Antioch,  and 
by  profession  a  physician,  being  for  the  most  part 
connected  with  Paul,  and  familiarly  acquainted 
with  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  has  left  us  in  two 
inspired  books,  the  institutes  of  that  spiritual  heal- 
ing art  which  he  obtained  from  them.  One  of  these 
is  his  gospel,  in  which  he  testifies  that  he  has  re- 
corded, 'as  those  who  were  from  the  beginning 
eye-witnesses,  and  ministers  of  the  word,'  delivered 
to  him,  whom  also,  he  says,  he  has  in  all  things 
followed.  The  other  is  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
which  he  composed,  not  from  what  he  had  heard 
from  others,  but  from  what  he  had  seen  himself. 
It  is  also  said  that  Paul  usually  referred  to  his 
gospel,  whenever  in  his  epistles  he  spoke  of  some 
particular  gospel  of  his  own,  saying,  'according  to 
my  gospel.'"     (Ibid.  111:4.) 

Of  Matthew  and  John:  "Matthew  also  having 
first  proclaimed  the  gospel  in  Hebrew,  when  on 
the  point  of  going  also  to  other  nations,  committed 
it  to  writing  in  his  native  tongue,  and  thus  supplied 
the  want  of  his  presence  to  them  by  his  writings. 
But  after  Mark  and  Luke  had  already  published 
their  gospels  they  say  that  John,  who  during  all 
this  time  was  proclaiming  the  gospel  without  writ- 
ing, at  length  proceeded  to  write  it  on  the  follow- 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament      75 

ing  occasion.  The  three  gospels  previously  written, 
having  been  distributed  among  all,  and  also  handed 
to  him,  they  say  that  he  admitted  them ;  giving  his 
testimony  to  their  truth ;  but  that  there  was  only 
wanting  in  the  narrative  the  account  of  the  things 
done  by  Christ,  among  the  first  of  his  deeds,  and 
aj:  the  commencement  of  his  gospel."     (Ibid.  Ill: 

24.) 

Such  w^ere  the  views  of  orthodox  Christians  of 
the  year  325  A.  D.  The  views  thus  expressed  by 
Eusebius  came  down  from  the  times  of  Irenaeus 
(about  180  A.  D.).  A  perusal  of  chapters  IX- 
XI  of  the  third  book  of  his  Adv.  Her.  reveals  the 
fact  that  he  had  before  him  our  gospels  in  their 
present  shape.  That  they  were  extant  in  175  A.  D. 
is  attested  by  much  concurrent  testimony — the 
"Logos  Alethes"  of  Celsus,  the  Muratori  fragment, 
Tatian's  Diatessaron,  the  mention  of  John's  Gospel 
by  Theophilus  in  his  defense  of  Christianity,  etc. 

Between  the  years  175  and  135  A.  D.  testimony 
as  to  the  authority  of  the  four  gospels  becomes 
scarce.  Justin  Martyr  (about  145  A.  D.)  quotes 
largely  from  a  written  source  which  he  calls  the 
"Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  quoting  many  pas- 
sages from  the  Synoptic  gospel  story.  [Matthew, 
Mark  and  Luke  are  the  "Synoptic"  gospels].  He 
also  refers  to  a  number  of  things  not  mentioned  in 


76  Facts  About  the  Bible 

our  gospels:  such  as  the  descent  of  Mary  through 
David,  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  a  cave,  the  close  of 
the  angel's  speech  to  Mary — all  which  things  are 
found  in  the  Apocr}-phal  Gospel  of  James.  (See 
Supernatural  Religion  vol.  i,  p.  299  fol.,  and  com- 
pare Westcott's  N.  T.  Canon  p.  158  fol.).  Apocry- 
phal gospels  of  Christ  have  been  collected  and  pub- 
lished by  B.  H.  Cowper,  London,  1881.  Justin 
distinctly  refers  to  John  the  Apostle  as  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse ;  and  a  number  of  passages  in  his 
first  Apolog}^  seem  to  echo  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Our 
four  gospels  may  have  been  known  to  him;  though 
it  would  seem  from  his  use  of  apocryphal  matter 
that  the  collection  of  books  of  the  New  Testament 
was  still  in  an  unsettled  state.  He  does  not  men- 
tion Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  or  John  as  the  author 
of  a  gospel. 

About  140  A.  D.  Marcion  formed  the  first  his- 
torical collection  of  New  Testament  books,  contain- 
ing ''the  Gospel"  and  the  "Apostolicon"  (See 
Westcott,  Ibid.,  p.  312).  "The  gospel  was  a 
recension  of  St.  Luke  with  numerous  omissions  and 
variations  from  the  received  text.  The  Apostolicon 
contained  ten  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  excluding  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  and  that  to  the  Hebrews"  (Quoted 
from  Westcott,  p.  314).  Supernatural  Religion 
(vol.  n  p.  108  and  p.  141)  disputes  the  statement 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament      77 

that   Marcion's   gospel   was   a   recension   of   Luke. 

The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  (date 
about  100  A.  D.)  contains  the  Lord's  prayer 
(chapter  8)  :  and  Clement  of  Rome  (about  96  A. 
D.)  used  fragments  of  the  language  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5-7).     (See  Westcott  p.  60.) 

Of  such  a  nature  is  the  evidence  before  150  A.  D. 
It  is  very  meagre.  Just  when  and  just  how  our 
four  gospels  came  into  existence,  and  how  they 
came  to  be  ascribed  to  the  authors  whose  names 
they  now  bear  will  no  doubt  remain  insoluble  ques- 
tions— unless  we  take  the  titles  in  good  faith. 

There  is  a  passage  in  Eusebius  which  may  yet 
prove  to  be  the  key  to  these  questions,  "a  tradition 
which"  Papias  "sets  forth  concerning  Mark";  also, 
his  statement  in   regard  to   Matthew: 

"And  John  the  Presbyter  also  said  this,  'Mark 
being  the  interpreter  of  Peter  whatsoever  he  re- 
corded he  wrote  with  great  accuracy,  but  not,  how- 
ever, in  the  order  in  which  it  was  spoken  or  done 
by  our  Lord,  for  he  neither  heard  nor  followed  our 
Lord,  but,  as  before  said,  he  was  in  company  with 
Peter,  who  gave  him  such  instruction  as  was  nec- 
essary, but  not  to  give  a  history  of  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses; wherefore  Mark  has  not  erred  in  any- 
thing, by  writing  some  things  as  he  has  recorded 
them;  for  he  was  carefully  attentive  to  one  thing, 
not  to  pass  by  anything  that  he  heard,  or  to  state 


78  Facts  About  the  Bible 

anything  falsely  in  these  accounts.'  Such  is  the 
account  of  Papias  respecting  Mark.  Of  Matthew 
he  has  stated  as  follows:  'Matthew  composed  his 
histoiy  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  every  one  trans- 
lated it  as  he  was  able.'  "     (Eusebius,  Bk.  Ill,  39.) 

Now  fragments  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  have  been  collected  from  authors  who 
quoted  it.  (See  E.  B.  Nicholson's  Gosp.  ace.  to 
Hebr.).  It  is  not  hard  to  suppose  this  Hebrew 
gospel  to  have  been  in  its  earliest  possible  form  the 
work  of  Matthew  himself.  The  earliest  Greek 
Gospel  is  probably  Mark,  and  perhaps,  as  Papias 
says,   Mark  was  its  real  author. 

Papias  wrote  about  140  A.  D.  (See  Westcott, 
p.  70  footnote). 

Internal  Evidence 

Strauss  maintained  that  the  truth  as  to  the  com- 
position of  our  gospels  must  "be  determined  wholly 
by  internal  grounds  of  evidence."  (See  Geo.  Eliot's 
Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  75  and  following.) 

The  interdependence  of  the  first  three  gospels, 
the  Synoptics,  is  shown  by  the  fact  "that  twelve- 
thirteenths  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe  is 
left  without  a  record;  and  that  the  three  gospels 
move  within  the  limits  of  the  remaining  one-thir- 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       79 

teenth."      (Martineau's   Seat   of  Authority   in   Re- 
ligion, p.    185.) 

W.  G.  Rushbrooke's  Synopticon  shows  very 
clearly  that  one  Greek  gospel  story  underlies  the 
first  three  Gospels.  For  example,  a  comparison  is 
made  of  Mk.  XII:i-ii,  Matt.  XXI:  33-42  and 
Luke  XX:  9-17,  with  this  result: 

"That  from  Mark  XII:  i  to  Mark  XII:  11,  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  contain  nothing  in  common 
which  is  not  also  found  in  a  slightly  modified  edi- 
tion of  St.  Mark.  This  being  the  case,  it  can  be 
proved  by  reductio  ad  absurdum  that  St.  Mark  did 
not  copy  from  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  For, 
suppose  that  he  did  so  copy;  it  follows  that  he 
must  not  only  have  constructed  a  narrative  based 
upon  tw^o  others,  borrowing  here  a  piece  from  St. 
Matthew  and  here  a  piece  from  St.  Luke,  but  that 
he  must  have  deliberately  determined  to  insert,  and 
must  have  adapted  his  narrative  so  as  to  insert, 
every  word  that  was  common  to  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke.  The  difficulty  of  doing  this  is  enormous, 
and  will  be  patent  to  every  one  who  will  try  to 
perform  a  similar  literary  feat  himself." 

Mark,  therefore,  did  not  copy  from  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Matthew  did  not  copy  from  Luke  and 
Mark:  for  had  he  done  so,  Matthew  and  Luke 
would  contain  something  in  common  not  found  in 
the  parallel  passage  of  Mark.     Luke  did  not  copy 


8o  Facts  About  the  Bible 

from  Matthew  and  Mark  for  a  similar  reason.  No 
one  of  the  three  copied  from  both  the  others. 

Luke  did  not  copy  from  Matthew  alone.  For 
had  he  done  so  they  would  have  contained  things 
in  common  not  found  in  Mark.  For  similar  reason 
Matthew  did  not  copy  from  Luke  alone. 

Mark  did  not  copy  from  Luke  alone.  For  had 
he  done  so,  there  would  be  found  parallel  passages 
in  Matthew  and  Luke  not  found  in  Mark.  For 
similar  reason  Mark  did  not  copy  from  Matthew 
alone. 

The  only  possibility  left  is  that  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew (at  least  in  the  case  of  many  parallel  passages) 
each  copied  separately  from  Mark,  or  a  document 
underlying   Mark. 

To  bear  out  this  logic  it  may  be  observed  that 
Luke  is  later  than  Mark.  For  in  Mark  we  have 
a  comparatively  simple  narrative,  no  wonderful  birth 
of  John  the  Baptist  or  of  Jesus,  no  artificial  gene- 
alogy for  Jesus,  no  wonderful  stories  of  his  reap- 
pearance after  resurrection  (that  is,  if  we  follow 
our  fourth  century  manuscripts  of  Mark — at  any 
rate,  Mark  is  ver>'  brief  as  regards  things  happen- 
ing after  the  resurrection  when  compared  with 
Luke).  Furthermore,  Papias,  while  he  gives  us  a 
tradition  as  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  affords  no 
evidence    for    Luke.      Again,    Luke   21:20   reads: 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       8i 

"when  ye  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies, 
then  know  that  her  desolation  is  at  hand" — a  pas- 
sage which  must  have  been  written  after  the  tak- 
ing of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.  D.,  and  which  is  with- 
out its  parallel  in  the  corresponding  passage  of 
Mark  XIII.  Yet  again,  Luke  i :  i  reads,  "Foras- 
much as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a 
narrative,"   etc. 

Therefore  Luke  is  later  than  Mark. 

Likewise  it  may  be  shown  that  the  Greek  Mat- 
thew is  later  than  Mark:  (i)  On  account  of  the 
beginning  and  the  close  of  the  book.  (2)  On  ac- 
count of  the  use  of  prophecy  quoted  to  prove  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  (See  chap.  1:22;  11:5; 
IV:  14;  XII:  17;  XIII:  14,35;  XXI:  4  and  com- 
pare the  use  of  prophecy  in  Mark,  not  in  a  dogmatic 
way  but  more  as  liberal  preachers  to-day  use  a  Bible 
text:  Chap.  1:2;  VII:  6,  with  which  compare 
Matt.  15:7;  XII:  10,  cf.  Matt.  21:42;  XII:  36, 
cf.  Matt.  22:43).  (3)  On  account  of  the  use 
of  a  sign  to  prove  the  same  thing,  in  Matt.  12:  39: 
"An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a 
sign ;  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but 
the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet,"  etc.,  cf.  Matt.  16:  4. 
In  the  parallel  of  Mark  (8:  12)  we  have  simply: 
"he  sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit  and  saith.  Why  doth 
this  generation  seek  a  sign?  verily  I  say  unto  you, 


82  Facts  About  the  Bible 

There  shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  this  generation." 
(The  signs  spoken  of  in  Mark  16:9-20  indicate 
perhaps  that  these  disputed  verses  are  spurious.) 
(4)  On  account  of  the  reference  to  the  church  in 
Matt.  16:18  (cf.  18:17).  (5)  On  account  of 
the  passage  in  Matt.  24:  15  about  the  "abomination 
of  desolation"  in  the  holy  place — thought  to  refer 
to  the  statue  of  Zeus  set  up  in  the  holy  place  by 
Emperor  Hadrian,  134  A.  D.  (So  says  Prof. 
Moore  of  Andover.) 

Therefore  Matthew  in  its  Greek  form  is  later 
than  Mark. 

Nov^7  there  are  strong  arguments  to  support  the 
belief  that  Mark  actually  did  write  the  simplest  of 
our  Gospels.  The  report  that  John  the  Presbyter 
gave  out  concerning  the  composition  of  the  second 
gospel  (see  p.  77  of  this  treatise),  and  that  was 
accepted  by  Papias  in  good  faith,  and  that  accords 
so  well  with  the  simple  straightforward  story  of 
the  second  gospel,  should  be  carefully  weighed. 
Again,  the  genuineness  of  Paul's  epistles  argues  for 
that  of  all  the  New  Testament  books  with  which 
they  have  come  down.  Mark  may  have  recorded 
miracles  in  good  faith — the  real  author,  whoever 
he  is,  probably  did  so.  Mark  would  have  believed 
in  the  Second  Advent  more  easily  than  a  man  of 
a  succeeding  generation.     The  Second  Advent  was 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       83 

a  part  of  the  Christian  belief  of  his  day.  (See 
chaps.  13;  8:38;  9:1.)  Very  likely,  then,  our 
Greek  Mark  (rejecting  the  last  twelve  verses,  and 
allowing  for  later  interpolations)  is  the  work  of 
the  man  Mark,  who,  as  Papias  observes,  neither 
heard  nor  followed  our  Lord. 

Our  Greek  Matthew  is  later  than  Mark,  as  has 
been  shown.  It  is  evidently  not  the  gospel  men- 
tioned by  Papias — "Matthew  composed  his  gospel 
in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  every  one  translated  it 
as  he  was  able."  The  author  of  our  Greek  Mat- 
thew copied  passages  from  Mark  or  from  a  manu- 
script underlying  Mark.  He  may  have  obtained 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5-7)  and  other 
passages  from  Matthew's  gospel;  and  for  that  rea- 
son, perhaps,  his  gospel  has  received  its  present 
name,  "according  to  Matthew."  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  Gospel  which  is  pervaded  with  the 
idea  of  the  fulfillment  of  Jewish  prophecy  must 
have  some  connection  with  Matthew's  Gospel  in 
Hebrew. 

That  one  and  the  same  author  wrote  both  Luke 
and  Acts  is  shown  by  the  dedication  of  each  to 
Theophilus,  as  well  as  by  similarities  of  style.  "The 
literary  evidence,  from  the  complexion  of  the  lan- 
guage, and  organism  of  the  style,  clearly  indicates 
the  action  of  the  same  mind  and  hand."     (Marti- 


84  Facts  About  the  Bible 


neau's  Seat  of  Authority,  p.  245.)  But  that  that 
author  was  Luke,  as  Eusebius  believed  him  to  be, 
is  not  so  certain.  (See  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.,  Bk.  Ill, 
Chap.  4.)  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  actual 
companion  of  Paul  (II  Tim.  4:11;  Phil.  24;  Col. 
4:  14)  would  have  recorded  such  things  of  him  as 
his  miraculous  cure  of  the  lame  man  (Acts  14:  8), 
his  miraculous  escape  from  prison  (Act  16:26), 
his  cures  by  holy  contagion  (Acts  19:  12),  his  rais- 
ing a  person  from  the  dead  (Acts  20:9)  together 
with  parallel  incidents  in  the  life  of  Peter  (Acts 
3:2;  12:7;  5:19;  5:15;  9:36  fol.).  Yet,  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  a  man  of  such  wonderful  activity 
and  daring,  there  may  have  been  grounds  for  these 
stories.  The  raising  from  the  dead  in  Acts  20:9 
is  easily  explained:  Paul  himself  declared  that  the 
young  man  still  had  life  in  him.  Now  II  Tim. 
4:  II,  Col.  4:  14  and  Phil.  24  (the  only  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  where  Luke  is  named)  were 
all  written  after  60  A.  D.  Luke  must  have  come 
into  relationship  with  Paul  no  earlier  than  50  A.  D. 
(cf.  Acts  16:  10-17,  and  the  later  "we"  passages 
in  Acts  20:5-15;  21:1-18;  27:1  fol.)  So  that 
Luke  must  have  recorded  much  from  hearsay,  "even 
as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which  from  the 
beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       85 

word."  (Luke  1:2.)  This  does  not  preclude  the 
probability  that  he  copied  largely  from  Mark. 

Next  we  come  to  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Here  there 
is  no  tradition  of  Papias  to  start  with — save  that 
it  is  said  that  Papias  "made  use  of  testimony  from 
the  first  Epistle  of  John,"  which  closely  resembles 
the  writing  of  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
(See  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  HI,  39.)  The  first  men- 
tion of  the  gospel  is  made  by  Theophilus,  175  A.  D. 
Even  the  apologetic  writers  to-day  rank  the  Fourth 
Gospel  as  a  late  one.  The  Second  Advent  idea  of 
the  Synoptics  is  replaced  by  the  idea  of  the  Para- 
clete. The  Synoptics  put  the  Lord's  supper  at  the 
time  of  the  Jewish  passover,  while  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel puts  it  the  day  before  the  passover ;  in  which 
respect  there  is  the  same  variance  between  the  two 
as  divided  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia  from  the 
West  in  the  famous  paschal  controversy  of  the 
Christian  church.  (See  Martineau,  Seat  of  Author- 
ity, pp.  227-235  and  compare  Mk.  XIV:  12-17, 
Luke  XXH:  7-15,  Matt.  XXVI:  17-20  with  John 
13:  I,  18:  28,  19:  14  and  36.) 

In  Mark's  simple  gospel  Jesus  is  said  to  have 
refused  to  give  a  sign  (8:  12).  In  the  fourth 
Gospel  he  begins  his  career  by  changing  water  into 
wine — "this   beginning    of   his   signs   did   Jesus   in 


86  Facts  About  the  Bible 

Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  his  glory;  and  his 
disciples  believed  on  him."  These  passages  mark 
the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  two  books, 
as  I  will  proceed  to  point  out.  Salvation  through 
belief,  because  of  his  miracles,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  is  the  central  teaching  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel: "Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  the  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book:  but  these  are  written,  that  ye  may  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that 
believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name''  (John  20: 
30  and  31).  Such  passages  are  too  numerous  to 
quote.  I  cite  John  1:7,  12,  15,  29  foL,  34,  41, 
50;  II:  II,  22;  III:  15,  16,  36;  IV:  26,  39,  42,  53; 
V:23,  27,  32-39,  46;  VI  14,  29,  40,  47,  64,  69; 
VII  5,  31,  38,  41;  VIII  18,  24,  28,  46;  IX  3,  22, 
36,  38,  41;  X  7  foL,  25,  38,  42;  XI  15,  25-27,  45, 
48;  XII  36,  38-40,  44,  46;  XIV  I,  6,  7,  10-12, 
20;  XV  6;  XVI  27,  31 ;  XVII  3,  8,  20,  21 ;  XX  8, 
25,  27. 

Contrast  such  doctrine  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Synoptics,  and  judge  which  is  theology  and  which 
is  the  religion  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  "Not  every 
one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  lord,  shall  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven:  but  he  that  doeth  the  will 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven"  (Matt.  7:21). 
Consider  these  passages  in  Mark:  "repent  ye  and 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       87 

believe  in  the  gospel"  {not,  *'that  I  am  the  Christ"), 
I:  15;  the  parable  of  the  sower,  IV:  14  fol. ;  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  IV  26-32 ;  "and 
they  went  out  and  preached  that  men  should  re- 
pent," VI:i2;  "whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for  my 
sake  and  the  gospel's  shall  save  it,"  VIII  35  and 
compare  X:  29;  "Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  .  .  .  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God," 
X  14;  "why  callest  thou  me  god?"  X:  18;  "who- 
soever would  become  great  among  you,  shall  be 
your  servant,"  X  43 ;  "the  Son  of  Man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many,"  X  45 ;  "Have  faith 
in  God/'  XI  22 ;  "There  is  none  other  command- 
ment greater  than  these,"  XII  31;  "My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  XV  34. 

There  are,  indeed,  numerous  passages  showing 
the  tendency  even  at  the  early  date  of  Mark's  Gos- 
pel to  deify  Jesus,  as  he  is  deified  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel:  E.  g.  Mk.  I:  i,  24,  34;  II:  10;  III:  11; 
IV:  41 ;  V:  7;  VIII:  29,  38;  IX:  7,  9,  12,  38,  41 1 
X:47;  XIII:  6,  9,  22,  26,  32;  XV:  32,  39.  But 
belief  in  such  deification  is  not  as  yet  made  the  test 
of  faith. 

I  do  not  believe  that  Jesus  preached  that  belief 
in  his  divine  sonship  was  requisite  to  salvation.  The 
sort  of  belief,  or  faith,  w^hich  he  preached  is  illus- 


88  Facts  About  the  Bible 


trated  in  Mark  IX:  23 — ''All  things  are  possible 
to  him  that  believeth"  (cf.  V:  36)  ;  also,  "Go  thy 
way ;  thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole,"  X :  52. 

The  Fourth  Gospel,  then,  is  the  furthest  from 
the  real  Jesus.  It  is  the  doctrinal  product  of  early 
Christians  written  to  persuade  people  that  "Jesus 
is  the  Christ." 

Begin  with  Paul's  simple,  straightforward  ac- 
count of  his  adventures  in  II  Cor.  XI,  and  by  the 
time  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  written  he  is 
performing  miracles.  Begin  with  the  spoken  word 
of  Jesus,  whom  they  understood  not,  "and  were 
afraid  to  ask  him"  (Mk.  1X132);  and,  passing 
through  the  pure  teaching  of  the  sermon  on  the 
mount  and  Mark's  simple  miracle  stories,  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  we  find  a  God  in  disguise,  proving 
his  nature  that  men  may  be  sound  In  their  theology. 

New  Testament  Epistles 

Thus  we  should  be  led  on  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
Book  of  Revelation,  which  contains  the  punishment 
for  him  who  would  add  to  or  subtract  from  the 
words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book.  (Rev.  22:  18- 
19.)  We  have  already  noted  the  doubt  which  the 
early   church   historian   Eusebius  throws  upon   the 


The  Formation  of  the  New  Testament       89 

genuineness  of  this  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  the  great  epistles  of  Paul  the  apostle  remain 
unquestioned.  Here,  then  (for  example,  in  Paul's 
first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  where  he  speaks  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  perhaps, 
chap.  15;  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  chap.  11),  we 
have  historical  testimony  of  a  date  probably  preced- 
ing the  writing  of  Mark. 

Without  going  through  with  the  discussion  of 
the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  we  can  now  try  to 
trace  out  the  truth  about  the  great  central  charac- 
ter, Jesus  of  Nazareth,  from  the  testimony  at  hand. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE     HISTORY    OF     JESUS    AS     PRESENTED     BY    THE 
STUDY  OF   FACTS 

BEFORE  Christ's  coming,  the  Messiah  was  ex- 
pected by  the  Jews.  Not  to  speak  of  the  na- 
tional anticipation  of  the  victory  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  (see  Isai.  chaps.  40-55),  there  were  two 
important  documents  current  perhaps  in  the  days  of 
Jesus,  which  gave  evidence  as  to  the  "Messianic 
Expectation,"  as  scholars  phrase  it. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  detailed  account  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  Psalter  of  Solomon,  chap.  17:  23-51. 
This  Psalter,  found  only  in  the  Septuagint,  was 
unquestionably  written  in  Hebrew,  and  is  one  of 
our  few  sources  for  the  history  of  the  Messianic 
hope.  (So  says  Prof.  Moore  of  Andover  Theol. 
Seminary.)     The  passage  in  question  is: 

"Look  upon  them,  O  Lord,  and  set  up  over  them 
their  king,  son  of  David,  at  the  time  when  thou, 
who  art  God,  seest  fit,  that  thy  son  may  rule  over 
Israel. 

And  gird  him  with  strength  to  break  in  pieces 

90 


The  History  of  Jesus  91 


unrighteous  rulers.  Cleanse  Jerusalem  from  na- 
tions who  destroy  her  in  haughtiness.  With  wis- 
dom, with  justice,  may  he  cut  sinners  off  from 
inheritance.  May  he  break  in  pieces  the  sinner's 
arrogance  like  a  potter's  vessels.  With  a  rod  of 
iron  may  he  annihilate  all  their  foundation.  May 
he  destroy  lawless  nations  by  the  word  of  his 
mouth,"  etc.,  etc. 

The  second  document  in  question  is  the  Simili- 
tudes of  the  Book  of  Enoch,  comprising  chapters 
37-70.  These  chapters  have  many  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  New  Testament.  They  plainly  repre- 
sent a  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah,  who,  after 
Daniel,  chap.  7:  13,  is  called  Son-of-Man.  The  use 
of  the  phrase  by  Jesus  may  have  come  from  this 
writing.     (So  thinks  Prof.  Moore  of  Andover.) 

I  note  the  following  extracts  from  the  Simili- 
tudes : 

(Chap.  46)  :  "And  there  I  saw  one  who  had 
a  head  of  days,  and  his  head  was  white  like  wool, 
and  with  him  was  another  being  whose  countenance 
was  full  of  graciousness,  like  one  of  the  holy  angels. 
And  I  asked  the  angel  who  went  with  me  and 
showed  me  all  the  hidden  things  concerning  that 
Son  of  Man  .  .  .  this  Son  of  Man  whom  thou 
hast  seen  will  arouse  the  kings  and  the  mighty  ones 
from  their  couches  and  the  strong  ones  from  their 
thrones,  and  will  loosen  the  reins  of  the  strong 
and  grind  to  powder  the  teeth  of  the  sinners.  .  .  ." 


92  Facts  About  the  Bible 

(Chapter  47 — compare  passages  in  the  Book  of 
Revelation)  : 

"In  those  days  will  the  holy  ones  who  dwell 
above  in  the  heavens  unite  with  one  voice  and  sup- 
plicate and  intercede  and  laud  and  give  thanks  and 
bless  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  on  account  of 
the  blood  of  the  righteous  which  has  been  shed, 
and  the  prayer  of  the  righteous  that  it  may  not  be 
in  vain  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  that  judgment 
may  be  done  unto  them,  and  that  they  may  not 
have  to  suffer  forever.  And  in  those  days  I  saw 
the  Head  of  Da3^s  when  he  had  seated  himself  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  the  books  of  the  living 
wtrt  opened  before  Him,  and  His  whole  host  which 
is  in  heaven  above  and  around  Him  stood  before 
Him,"  etc. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  came  and  taught.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5-7),  one  of  the 
most  authentic  of  New  Testament  documents,  we 
have  the  spirit  of  his  teaching.  "I  came  not  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfill"— to  give  the  golden  rule  for 
the  harsh  laws  of  old-fashioned  justice,  to  bid  men 
to  pray  to  "our  Father"  in  secret,  to  be  anxious 
about  no  worldly  thing  but  to  seek  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  to  do  the  will  of  our  heavenly  Father. 

Jesus  was  crucified  and  buried.  His  followers 
scattered;  rallied;  gained  adherents.  Stephen  suf- 
fered a  martyr's  death,  Paul  standing  by  consenting 


The  History  of  Jesus  93 

to  it.  Paul  repented,  being  called  by  a  heavenly 
voice  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  the  world.  He 
wrote  of  the  appearance  of  Christ  after  death  (I 
Cor.    15). 

So  the  Galilean  conquered.  He  became  deified. 
His  return  was  expected,  on  clouds  of  glory:  "they 
shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  on  the  clouds 
of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory"  (Matt.  24: 
30).  See  Matt.  24  and  25;  also.  Matt.  10:23 
and  13:39-49  and  16:26-28  and  19:28.  Com- 
pare Mark  13  and  Luke  21;  and  see  also  Mark 
8:  38  and  9:1;  Luke  17:  20-21  and  9:  26  and  27. 
Paul  wrote  of  the  Second  Advent  I  Cor.  10:11, 
I  Cor.  7:29-31,  I  Cor.  4:5,  I  Cor.  1:4-8,  H 
Thess.  1:7-10,  Phil.  1:6  and  4:5,  I  Tim.  6:13 
and  14,  H  Tim.  4:1.  Compare  epistles  by  other 
writers:  I  Peter  4:  7,  James  5:  7-9,  I  John  2:  18 
and  I  John  2:28.  So  that  the  historian  Gibbon  is 
amply  justified  in  saying  (chap.  XV  of  the  De- 
cline and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire)  :  "It  was  uni- 
versally believed  [among  Christians]  that  the  end 
of  the  world  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  were  at 
hand."  "The  near  approach  of  this  wonderful 
event  had  been  predicted  by  the  apostles." 

What  wonder  that  by  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  A.  D.  the  great  teacher  of  divine  truth  had 
become    deified,    and    Mary   his   mother   raised    to 


94  Facts  About  the  Bible 

sainthood?  That  all  the  marvelous  stories  found 
in  the  Gospels,  of  turning  water  to  wine,  of  reap- 
pearance to  doubting  Thomas,  of  escape  from 
Herod  the  Great  who  slew  the  infants,  had  been 
written  down? 

Finally  the  heathen  world,  through  the  Jewish 
synagogues  scattered  in  foreign  lands  and  visited 
by  such  men  as  Paul,  heard  the  great  name  of 
Christ.  But  Christianity  was  brought  into  the 
world  in  a  very  quiet  way.  For  a  century  the 
Pagan  world  hardly  knew  what  had  happened,  so 
that  if  you  look  for  references  to  Jesus  in  the  au- 
thors of  the  period  you  will  find  hardly  a  trace 
of  him.  The  great  Roman  historian  Tacitus,  writ- 
ing about  lOO  A.  D.,  gives  an  account  of  Nero's 
persecution  of  the  mischievous  sect  called  Chris- 
tians, who  derived  their  name  and  origin  from  a 
man  who  suffered  death  by  the  sentence  of  Pontius 
Pilate,  governor  of  Judea.  (Bk.  15,  chap.  44.) 
There  are  only  some  half  dozen  other  references 
to  Christ  in  early  Pagan  authors,  very  brief  and 
of  little  interest. 

The  kingdom  of  God  grew  as  quietly  as  a  mus- 
tard seed.  In  the  early  days  it  was  of  no  credit  to 
be  called  a  Christian.  Sometimes  it  meant  an  igno- 
minious death.  People  of  wealth  and  position,  the 
brilliant   authors   and   society   leaders   of   the   day, 


The  History  of  Jesus  95 

didn't  care  to  consider  the  new  superstition — for 
superstition  they  probably  called  it  if  they  heard 
of  Christianity  at  all.  To  them  it  meant  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  belief  that  Jesus,  a  person  crucified 
in  Judea,  was  the  Christ — whatever  that  might 
mean.  For  it  was  not  generally  understood  among 
Greeks  and  Romans  that  the  Jews  had  been  ex- 
pecting the  Messiah  [the  Hebrew  word  for  Christ] 
and  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  proclaimed  that  in 
his  person  the  Messiah  had  come.  This  is  the 
theme  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  first  Epistle 
of  John.  "Who  is  the  liar,"  says  the  Epistle,  *'but 
he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?"  The 
author  of  Matthew  tries  to  fit  the  life  of  Jesus 
into  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  To  a 
Jew  such  theological  questions  meant  something. 
But  to  a  cultivated  Greek  or  a  Roman  it  was 
only  a  family  quarrel  in  the  house  of  Israel  that 
meant  nothing  to  outsiders.  A  few  plain  people, 
who,  having  no  great  intellectual  pride,  waived 
the  matter  of  theology,  listened  to  the  main  teach- 
ing of  this  new  sect  of  Christians,  and  believed  that 
the  religion  of  love  does  come  from  God. 

The  Roman  author  Pliny  the  younger,  when  he 
visited  the  Province  of  Bithynia  in  Asia  Minor, 
wrote  home  to  his  emperor,  Trajan,  about  this  ob- 
scure sect  of  Christians,  whose  meetings  were  caus- 


96  Facts  About  the  Bible 

ing  the  government  some  anxiety.  This  was  about 
80  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  Pliny  re- 
ports that  Christians  brought  before  him  for  trial 
affirmed : 

"That  they  were  accustomed  to  assemble  on  a 
stated  day,  before  light,  and  sing  among  themselves, 
alternately,  a  hymn  to  Christ,  as  if  God;  and  to 
bind  themselves  by  an  oath,  not  to  any  wicked- 
ness, but  that  they  would  not  commit  theft,  nor 
robbery,  nor  adultery,  that  they  would  not  falsify 
their  word,  nor  when  called  upon,  deny  a  pledge 
committed  to  them;  which  things  having  been  en- 
acted, it  was  the  custom  for  them  to  separate  and 
again  come  together  to  partake  of  food,  a  meal 
eaten  in  common." 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  DIVINITY   OF   CHRIST 

ORIGEN  said  (first  half  of  third  century 
A.  D.)  "there  were  two  sorts  of  Ebionites; 
some  who  believed  Jesus  to  have  been  born  of  a 
virgin,  as  we  do;  some  who  supposed  Jesus  to  be 
born  as  other  men  are."*  And  the  great  scholar 
Lardner  said:  "We  cannot  deny  that  there  w^ere 
some  believers  who  supposed  Jesus  to  have  been 
born  as  other  men."* 

If  we  accept  at  face  value  the  simple  words  of 
Mark,  "Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary, 
and  brother  of  James,"  etc.  (Mark  6:3),  and  the 
corresponding  passages  in  Matthew  and  John,  "Is 
not  this  the  carpenter's  son"  (Matt.  13:55),  "Is 
not  this  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph"  (John  6:42)  — 
if  w^e  accept  these  passages  as  authentic,  the  origin 
of  Jesus  appears  as  natural  as  that  of  George  Wash- 
ington. And  there  is  then  some  significance  in 
the  genealogy  found  in  the  first  chapter  of  Mat- 
thew and   ending  thus:    "Jacob  begat  Joseph   the 

*(See  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  383  and  383.) 
97 


98  Facts  About  the  Bible 

husband  of  Mary  of  whom  was  bom  Jesus"  (Matt, 
i:  i6).  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  make  his- 
tory of  the  legends  regarding  the  miraculous  birth 
of  Jesus  must  be  held  responsible  for  the  fanciful 
and  fortunately  unprovable  theory  that  Jesus  was 
an  illegitimate  child.  There  is  sanity  and  wisdom 
in  the  Unitarian  doctrine  that  the  origin  of  Jesus 
was  as  natural  and  as  pure  as  the  origin  of  George 
Washington. 

Now  Unitarians  are  charged  with  denying  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  They  ought  rather  to  be 
charged  with  affirming  the  divinity  of  all  souls. 
The  difficulty  is  that  they  believe  Jesus  Christ  to 
have  come  of  human  parentage.  Admit  that  the 
introductory  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
legendary   and  you   become  virtually   a   Unitarian. 

He  who  appeared  to  Paul  on  the  road  to  Damas- 
cus, whom  he  believed  to  have  been  "born  of  a 
woman"  (Gal.  4:4),  "of  the  seed  of  David  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh"  (Rom.  1:3),  had  manifested 
in  his  life  the  spirit  of  God,  although  he  became 
accursed  through  death  on  the  cross.  (See  Deu- 
teronomy 21:23  and  compare  Gal.  3:13.)  "As 
many  as  are  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  these  are 
sons  of  God."  (Romans  8:  14.)  So  Christ  was 
in  this  sense  the  son  of  God.  Even  the  Greek  poet 
had  said:  "we  are  his  offspring."     (Acts  17:28.) 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  99 

Paul  said:  "Because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father."     (Galatians  4:  6.) 

But  I  will  not  try  to  prove  that  Paul  was  a 
Unitarian,  although  I  believe  he  was  not  a  Trini- 
tarian. The  Trinity,  I  suppose,  w^as  a  product  of 
Greek  speculative  thought,  and  had  no  place  in  the 
simple  faith  of  Jesus  himself.  Pharisaical  doctrine 
formed  no  part  of  his  creed — his  faith  was  the 
belief  in  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  The  penitent 
publican  was  in  his  eyes  more  holy  than  the  self- 
righteous  Pharisee.  The  meek,  the  merciful,  the 
peacemakers,  those  who  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness,  the  pure  in  heart — such  ones  shall  be 
called  sons  of  God,  such  ones  shall  see  the  Father. 

In  the  earliest  Christian  times  there  were  Chris- 
tians who  believed  that  Jesus  came  of  human  par- 
entage. But  church  organizations  built  upon  the 
more  mysterious  doctrines.  When  Constantine  made 
a  written  constitution  for  the  church  an  anathema 
was  provided  for  all  heretics  who  might  not  believe 
as  the  majority  of  the  bishops  voted.  Jesus  was 
voted  to  have  been  the  one  Lord,  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,  God  from  God,  very  God  begotten 
not  made.  But  instead  of  quieting  the  heretics, 
the  Nicene  creed  was  the  beginning  of  fierce  eccle- 
siastical antagonisms  in  the  Eastern  church  which 


lOO  Facts  About  the  Bible 

lasted  till  the  Mohammedans  came  to  end  with  the 
sword  such  theological  Christianity.  The  Western 
Church  under  the  leadership  of  Rome  was  not 
much  concerned  with  the  hair-splitting  arguments 
of  Greek  Christianity,  but  built  solid  foundations 
on  principles  of  tolerance.  By  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century,  the  Roman  bishop  had  attained  such 
authority  that  he  could  teach  doctrine  to  the  whole 
of  Christendom.  Leo  I  (about  450  A.  D.)  was 
the  first  Roman  bishop  who  can  properly  be  called 
a  Pope.  At  the  council  of  Chalcedon  his  views 
as  to  the  nature  of  Christ  were  adopted,  and  they 
form  the  basis  of  Christian  belief  to  this  day.  He 
said  that  there  was  in  Christ  a  union  of  the  divine 
and  the  human,  making  one  nature  which  we  can 
not  understand:  that  this  is  a  matter  not  to  be 
determined  by  philosophy,  but  to  be  shown  by  Scrip- 
ture and  to  be  accepted  on  faith. 

The  union  of  divine  and  human  in  one  nature 
which  we  cannot  understand — this  is  the  belief  of 
Unitarians  to-day;  and  if  Unitarians  have  reached 
the  conclusion  that  there  is  the  same  kind  of  union 
of  divine  and  hum.an  in  every  person,  it  is  because 
the  leaders  of  their  churches  have  exercised  them- 
selves in  the  study  of  Scripture  and  have  faith  in 
the  soundness  of  reason. 

If  we  go  back  to  the  New  Testament  for  evi- 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  lOi 

dence  concerning  Jesus  we  have  an  authority  higher 
than  papal  decrees  or  majority  votes.  Paul  bears 
incontrovertible  evidence  as  to  the  great  influence 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  also  bears  evidence  to 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  though  in  precisely  what 
sense  it  is  hard  to  determine.  Was  the  appearance 
to  Cephas  and  the  twelve,  to  the  five  hundred  breth- 
ren at  once,  to  James,  to  all  the  apostles,  "and 
last  of  all,  as  unto  one  born  out  of  due  time,  unto 
me  also" — were  these  phenomena  to  be  paralleled 
in  the  experience  of  other  religious  people,  or  some- 
thing peculiarly  divine?  (cf.  I  Cor.  15).  Paul 
also  laid  the  foundation  for  church  doctrines.  He 
had  been  trained  a  Pharisee,  and  was  skilled  in  mat- 
ters of  the  Jewish  law.  Once  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity he  brought  with  him  not  only  his  zeal,  but 
his  facility  for  Scriptural  interpretation  and  for 
theorizing,  also.  His  beloved  master  became  for 
him  the  especial  Son  of  God.  A  Greek  poet  had 
truly  said  that  all  men  are  his  offspring;  and  "as 
many  as  are  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  these  are 
sons  of  God,"  said  Paul.  But  further:  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Anointed  One,  the  Second  Adam  faith 
in  whom  was  to  abrogate  the  divine  law  of  Moses 
and  give  the  freedom  that  is  in  Christ  {Rom.  5). 
A  modern  world  which  denies  that  Moses  wrote 
the    Pentateuch    and   which    regards    the   story   of 


102  Facts  About  the  Bible 

Adam  and  Eve  merely  as  an  allegory  can  not  but 
be  relieved  to  turn  from  the  theology  of  Paul  to 
the  simple  soul-religion  of  Jesus  himself. 

Thus  we  turn  from  church  councils  where  the 
majority  ruled,  and  from  the  testimony  of  the  first 
great  Christian  missionary  to  the  gospels.  A  little 
study  of  the  gospels  brings  to  light  an  important 
fact:  namely,  that  the  first  three  gospels,  the  synop- 
tics as  they  are  called,  contain  a  narrative  of  Jesus' 
ministry,  while  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  largely  doc- 
trinal. It  was  'Svritten  that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that 
believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name."  Every 
page  of  the  book  aims  to  teach  this  doctrine.  There 
is  a  little  book  called  "Children  of  God  and  Union 
with  Christ"  recently  sent  out  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Rev.  John  Hall  of  New  York,  and  intended 
to  arouse  people  unsound  in  doctrine  to  a  sense 
of  their  mortal  danger  of  hell-fire.  If  we  examine 
the  texts  cited  in  the  end  of  the  little  book,  we 
find  that  the  majority  of  them  were  taken  from 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  One  of  these  texts  reads:  "No 
man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me."  Another 
reads:  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlast- 
ing life":  but  for  some  reason  the  words  that  im- 
mediately follow  in  the  gospel  have  been  omitted. 
The  full  gospel  reading  is:    "He  that  believeth  on 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  103 

the  Son  hath  everlasting  life ;  and  he  that  believeth 
not  [or,  as  exegetes  prefer,  "obeyeth  not'']  the  Son 
shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on   him."      (John    3:  36.) 

Now,  I  should  be  the  last  to  deny  that  many  a 
soul  has  found  salvation  by  adhering  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  I  believe  that 
such  a  passage  as  this  is  unchristian,  untrue  to  the 
character  of  him  who  taught:  "Not  every  one  that 
saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  7:21.) 
When  we  look  into  the  history  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel it  turns  out  to  be  very  doubtful  what  the  origin 
of  that  gospel  was. 

It  seems  safer  to  turn  to  the  synoptics  for  the 
best  account  of  Jesus  and  his  teaching.  Here  we 
find  little  that  is  doctrinal.  His  divinity  the  teacher 
does  not  need  to  prove.  When  asked  by  what 
authority  he  doeth  these  things,  he  asks  by  what 
authority  John  the  Baptist  came  preaching.  (Mark 
11:30.)  There  are,  indeed,  many  things  in  the 
synoptics  which  go  to  support  the  doctrinal  teach- 
ing of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  There  is  the  text  at 
the  end  of  Matthew:  **A11  power  is  given  to  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth" — but  we  distrust  the  his- 
torical value  of  the  conclusion  of  Matthew  as  we 


I04  Facts  About  the  Bible 

distrust  the  historical  value  of  the  beginning.  There 
is  the  text  imbedded  in  the  body  of  the  gospel:  "All 
things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father: 
and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father; 
neither  doth  any  know  the  Father  save  the  Son  and 
he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him." 
(Matt.  11:27.)  But  this  accords  rather  with  the 
stories  of  the  miraculous  birth  than  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Treat  the  gospels  as  we  treat  the  Old  Testament 
— make  due  allowance  for  stories  of  the  marvellous 
and  the  products  of  oriental  imagination — and  we 
arrive  at  a  religion  which  is  summed  up  in  the 
words,  **love  to  God  and  man."  This  I  believe  to 
have  been  the  religion  of  Jesus.  In  teaching  this 
pure  religion  he  proved  himself  to  have  been  di- 
vine, gifted  with  a  deeper  insight  into  truth  than 
belonged  to  Pharisee  or  Sadducee. 

That  he  claimed  for  himself  a  peculiar  divinity 
different  in  kind  as  well  as  in  degree  from  that  of 
his  followers  does  not  appear  to  be  attested  on 
trustworthy  evidence.  Indeed,  we  have  in  the 
synoptics  a  bit  of  evidence  to  the  contrary:  "who- 
soever shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man, 
it  shall  be  forgiven  him,  but  whosoever  shall  speak 
against  the  Holy  Spirit  it  shall  not  be  forgiven." 
(Matt.  12:32.)     Or  consider  the  parallel  passages 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  105 

in  Mark  and  Luke  which  read:  "Good  master, 
what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life? 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  me 
good?  None  is  good  save  one,  even  God."  (Mark 
10:  17  and  18;  Luke  18:  18  and  19.) 

To  be  sure,  the  oldest  text  of  Matthew  reads: 
"Master  what  good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may 
have  eternal  life?  And  he  said  unto  him.  Why 
askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is  goodf 
One  there  is  who  is  good."      (Matt.    19:  16  and 

17.) 

Now  if  we  act  on  the  principle  of  Dr.  Ezra  Ab- 
bot, that  in  the  case  of  differing  paralleled  passages 
in  the  three  synoptics,  Mark  represents  the  source 
from  which  the  gospels  of  Luke  and  Matthew  drew, 
we  find  that  in  the  case  in  hand  the  objectionable 
words,  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?"  are  not  only 
confirmed  by  Luke,  but  are  probably  the  basis  of 
the  text  in  Matthew.  The  writer  in  Matthew  ap- 
pears to  have  changed  the  words  about — instead  of 
''Good  master,  what  shall  I  do"  he  wrote  "Master 
what  good  thing  shall  I  do."  And  in  adapting  the 
rest  of  the  passage  he  spoiled  the  sense:  "Why 
askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is  good? 
One  there  is  who  is  good."  I  must  believe  that 
Mark  and  Luke  are  right.  This  is  what  the  scribe 
must   have   thought   who   penned    the   Greek   text 


io6  Facts  About  the  Bible 

from  which  King  James's  Version  was  taken.  In 
King  James's  Version  all  three  passages  read  alike. 

"Why  callest  thou  me  good?  none  is  good  save 
one,  even  God."  Here  then,  connected  with  a 
passage  of  evident  authenticity,  a  passage  bearing 
all  the  marks  of  an  actual  reminiscence  of  Jesus' 
teaching,  we  have  a  disclaimer  from  Jesus  of  any 
pretensions  to  especial  divinity.  He  points  the  ques- 
tioner tp  the  One  great  Good — God.  This  seems 
perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  the  Son 
of  Man  who  had  ''not  where  to  lay  his  head."  If 
this  view  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  be  correct,  such 
language  makes  Jesus  only  the  more  divine.  But 
if  the  special  divinity  of  Christ  be  maintained,  those 
who  ask  us  to  accept  this  doctrine  or  call  Christ  an 
impostor  must  tell  us  why  Jesus  imposed  on  his 
followers   by  such   pretended  humility. 

"Impostor" — we  do  wrong  to  indulge  in  such 
terms  when  dealing  with  the  doubting  Nathanaels 
of  to-day. 

Need  we  ask  what  Jesus  himself  would  have  us 
believe  concerning  his  divinity?  Certainly  he  be- 
lieved that  God  was  his  Father:  but  he  taught  men 
to  pray  Our  Father.  He  taught  with  authority — 
but  so  did  John  the  Baptist,  and  so  did  those  who 
penned  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  of  Hebrew  Scrip- 
ture.    He  loved  the  Dublicans  and  sinners  and  his 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  lo7 


own  enemies;  and  shed  his  influence  as  generously 
as  sunshine,   which   blesses  both   the  just  and  the 
unjust.    When  he  died  it  was  not  to  maintain  any 
doctrine  of  his  divinity.     Had  it  been  so,  his  gospel 
would  have  become  a   theology— as  many  learned 
but  foolish  men  have  endeavored  to  make  it.     He 
offered  up  his  own  divine  life  freely,  not  asking  to 
be  crowned  King  of  the  Jews,  but  saying  simply, 
''The   time   is   fulfilled   and   the   kingdom   of  God 
is  at  hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel." 
(Mark    1:15.)      No   wonder   that   such   unselfish 
love  could  conquer  the   fanaticism  of  a  Paul,  and 
merit  the  name.  Son  of  God. 

Perhaps  he  realized  the  greatness  of  his  mission 
—to  transmit  to  future  centuries  the  pure  faith 
in  God  which  his  nation  had  cherished  during  cen- 
turies past— to  free  religion  from  the  externalities 
of  Scribe  and  Pharisee— to  fulfill  the  law  and  the 
prophets— and  so  to  put  into  the  hearts  of  men 
the  leaven  that  would  leaven  the  whole  fabric  of 
human  societv.  It  was  the  grandest  mission  that 
ever  man  had,  and  he  fulfilled  it  faithfully,  even 

unto  death. 

It  would  have  been  strange  if  philosophy  had 
not  seen  in  the  great-souled  Galilean  the  Son  of 
Heaven's  King  come  down  to  earth. 

We  look  up  at  the  stars,  and  wonder  who  the 


io8  Facts  About  the  Bible 

saviors  of  souls  in  other  planets  and  other  systems 
may  have  been.  We  turn  our  thoughts  back  to 
earth,  and  find  in  many  a  heathen  heart  the  Christ- 
like spirit.  At  last  we  recognize  that  all  souls 
have  a  spark  of  the  same  divinit}^  that  glowed  in 
Christ's  heart.  And  so  we  deny  Christ's  divinity? 
Not  at  all — we  recognize  that  God  is  our  Father, 
as  Christ  taught.  We  affirm  the  divinity  of  all 
souls.  It  is  true  that  some  souls  do  not  accept  their 
heritage  of  divine  truth  and  love.  We  are  weak, 
and  the  struggle  of  life  is  hard.  Not  a  saint  but 
would  say  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?"  We  need 
the  encouragement  of  friends  and  loved  ones.  We 
need  inspiration  from  our  great  Master.  So  as 
long  as  the  earth  endures  there  will  be  men  called 
Christians.  The  divinity  of  Christ  will  forever 
be  acknowledged  by  good  and  earnest  souls  who 
look  to  him  as  sent  in  God's  Providence  to  turn 
men's  hearts  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 


CHAPTER   VII 


LIVE  ISSUES 


LET  us  Inquire  what  effect  the  higher  criticism 
of  the  Bible  has  upon  life.  "Let  us  hear  the 
conclusion  of  the  whole  matter."  Its  first  effect  is 
to  simplify  things,  to  make  life  more  natural,  freer, 
nobler.  We  are  reminded  of  the  words  of  Micah: 
"what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do 
justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God  ?"  With  the  formalism  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  of  this  generation  swept  aside,  the 
nobility  and  sublimity  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  him- 
self appears:  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  command- 
ment. And  the  second  Is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  com- 
mandments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets." 

Such  has  been  the  faith  of  all  great  souls  In  all 
times  whatever  their  nationality.     It  was  not  the 
exclusive  heritage  of  those  self-styled  "chosen  peo- 
ple," the  Jews.     Our  own  ancestors  in  the  forests 
109 


no  Facts  About  the  Bible 

of  Saxony  revered  the  great  All-Father.  Noble 
Greeks  and  Romans  were  as  true  to  a  neighbor  as 
ever  Jew^  v^^as.  Centuries  before  the  Christian  era 
India  and  China  were  not  without  the  light  of 
true  religion.  In  all  lands  at  all  times  the  war- 
fare between  flesh  and  spirit  goes  on.  The  vital 
power  of  Christ's  gospel  is  essentially  the  same  as 
the  vital  power  of  every  gospel — the  appeal  it 
makes  to  our  higher  instincts.  Of  all  gospels 
Christ's  has  been  the  most  elevating  because  his  per- 
sonality was  greater,  more  spiritual,  than  that  of 
other  prophets.  The  Higher  Criticism  establishes 
this  simple  fact,  clears  the  air  of  the  mists  and  fogs 
of  theology,  and  leaves  us  in  the  pure  atmosphere  of 
truth. 

The  Higher  Criticism  dispels  that  brood  of  sanc- 
timonious thoughts  which  make  their  appeal  to  our 
inherited  religious  prejudices  but  which  w^e  know 
in  our  hearts  to  be  evil.  Take,  for  example,  this 
idea  of  a  "chosen  people."  In  the  economy  of  Na- 
ture it  may  have  been  fortunate  that  the  Hebrews 
regarded  themselves  as  God's  chosen  people;  for 
from  the  stem  of  Jesse  sprang  the  supreme  religious 
genius  of  the  human  race.  But  it  was  the  chosen 
people  who  rejected  Jesus.  The  Germans  to-day 
are   obsessed   with    the    idea    that   thev   are   God's 


Live  Issues  iii 


chosen  people,  ordained  to  give  kultur  to  the  earth. 
Heaven  defend  us  from  the  deceit,  brutality,  and 
tyranny  of  the  Prussians!  We  Americans  feel  that 
we  are  the  chosen  people.  Let  us  hope  that  we  may 
preserve  the  freedom  we  have  inherited  and  trans- 
mit it  to  posterity.  But  let  us  not  lull  ourselves 
to  sleep  with  the  comforting  thought  that  we  are 
God's  chosen  people  and  that  therefore  He  will 
take  care  of  us.  Let  us  rather  trust  in  God  and 
keep  our  powder  dry.  A  chosen  people  should  not 
be  self-chosen.  God's  chosen  people  must  neces- 
sarily be  good  people,  and  good  people  everj^where, 
of  whatever  nationality,  are  God's  people. 

Take  this  idea  of  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath. 
"Remember  the  sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy" — it  is 
one  of  the  ten  commandments  of  Moses.  Jesus 
said,  "My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work." 
If  we  keep  every  day  of  the  seven  holy,  it  will  not 
be  necessary  to  join  the  Seventh  Day  Adventists.  Let 
us  free  ourselves  of  the  superstition  that  God  trans- 
mitted His  commandments  to  Moses  on  tables  of 
stone.  His  commandments  are  written  in  the  hu- 
man heart.  No  church  or  priest  should  scare  us 
with  a  bug-a-boo  when  we  have  graduated  from  the 
nursery  of  theology.  If  the  civil  authorities  have 
established   one  day  in   seven  as  a   day  of   rest,   I 


112  Facts  About  the  Bible 

am  thankful  for  it.  It  is  good  to  relax,  and  to 
contemplate  things  higher  and  better  than  the  things 
of  this  world. 

Take  this  idea  of  a  creed,  in  its  narrow  sense. 
Of  course,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  every  man, 
good  or  bad,  has  a  creed.  As  I  believe  so  I  do. 
But  I  stoutly  refuse  to  repeat  the  formula  that 
Jesus  was  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  To  me 
this  seems  blasphemous — a  foolish  attempt  to  be- 
little God  and  to  belittle  Jesus.  God  is  the  Father 
of  us  all,  as  Jesus  taught.  The  high-priests  of 
to-day  who  deify  Jesus  belong  to  the  same  breed 
of  high-priests  who  crucified  him  nineteen  centuries 
ago.  Is  it  not  absurd  that  the  noble  Jesus  whom 
they  crucified  has  been  adopted  by  these  spiritual 
tyrants  into  their  family  of  gods  and  that  they 
threaten  with  eternal  damnation  the  Jesus  of  to- 
day who  will  not  bend  before  their  altars? 

Take  this  idea  of  God's  promises.  In  a  spiritual 
sense,  what  thought  can  be  more  sublime  than  the 
thought  of  God's  promises  declared  unto  mankind 
through  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord?  Here  is  the  prom- 
ise that  we  may  become  Christ-like,  that  we  may 
have  the  courage  to  be  crucified,  if  need  be,  in  the 
line  of  duty.  But  Vv^hen  some  fanatic  begins  to 
tell  me  of  God's  promises  as  declared  in  His  Word, 
I  am  tempted  to  tell  him  that  God  never  signed 


Live  Issues  II3 


any  promissory  notes.  Those  who  think  He  did 
so  are  likely  to  perish  as  the  Armenians  have  per- 
ished. God's  promises,  like  His  laws,  are  im- 
planted in  the  human  heart.  If  we  have  inherited 
strength,  He  promises  us  long  life,  provided  we 
will  be  temperate,  and  defend  ourselves  from  the 
Turk.  If  we  have  been  gifted  with  talents.  He 
promises  us  riches  and  honor,  provided  we  will 
make  good  use  of  our  talents.  If  w^e  have  the  will 
to  fight  for  truth  and  justice,  we  may  be  crowned 
with  thorns,  but  we  shall  receive  His  benediction: 
"Well  done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant  .  .  . 
enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord." 

Finally,  take  this  idea  of  the  Word  of  God.  It 
will  probably  be  many  years  before  the  ministers 
of  our  churches  get  over  the  pernicious  habit  of 
referring  to  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God.  It  is 
the  word  of  man.  God  did  not  write  it.  Even 
when  He  sent  Jesus  into  the  world,  He  did  not 
make  a  scribe  of  him.  Not  one  word  of  the  New 
Testament  did  Jesus  write ;  nor  did  God  write  one 
word  of  the  whole  Bible.  Of  course,  the  retort  is 
that  God  inspired  it.  Parts  of  it,  yes.  Other  parts 
of  it,  no.  As  a  revelation  of  human  nature  the 
Bible  is  valuable  from  cover  to  cover — Protestant 
Bible  or  Catholic  Bible.  But  as  a  revelation  of 
God  it  must  be  used  with  discrimination,  else  we 


114  Facts  About  the  Bible 

shall  be  hanging  witches  again  or  establishing  polyg- 
amy. The  reason  people  make  a  fetish  of  the  Bible 
now-a-days  is  that  they  don't  study  it,  don't  realize 
the  fierce  barbarity  of  the  "chosen  people,"  don't 
know  w^hat  crimes  are  therein  calmly  charged  up 
to  the  Lord.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  reading  the 
Bible  ministers  and  people  do  use  discrimination 
constantly.  Nobody  cares  who  begat  Serug  or  whom 
Serug  begat.  We  select  the  noblest  passages  of  the 
Bible  just  as  we  select  for  our  delectation  the  best 
poems  of  Tennj^son,  and  we  may  then  say  truly, 
whether  the  author  be  Tennyson  or  Jeremiah,  "thus 
saith  the  Lord." 

So  much  by  way  of  clearing  the  ground  of  theo- 
logical rubbish.  What  does  the  true  theology  say 
of  evil?  Of  sorrow,  sickness,  poverty,  and  sin? 
In  vain  do  Christian  Scientists  ignore  disease  and 
death.  In  vain  do  social  reformers  devise  new 
schemes  to  eliminate  poverty  and  sin.  In  vain  do 
the  noise  and  distraction  of  civilization  seek  to 
drown  the  voice  of  sorrow.  Still  we  hear  the  cry 
of  David:     "Oh  Absalom,  my  son,  my  son!" 

There  is  no  denying  the  heart's  need  of  com- 
fort, solace,  and  forgiveness.  Upon  this  vital  need 
have  the  churches  of  all  faiths  and  nations  been 
established ;  and  mankind  will  never  outgrow  this 
need.     For  the  more  virtuous  a  man  becomes  the 


Live  Issues  115 


more  sensitive  becomes  his  conscience;  the  happier 
he  becomes  the  more  liable  is  he  to  the  crudest  sor- 
row; the  wiser  he  becomes  the  vaster  appears  the 
realm  of  the  unknown.  In  man  flesh  and  spirit  are 
always  in  unstable  equilibrium. 

The  only  satisfactory  solution  of  the  matter  is 
that  offered  by  the  churches:  human  life  is  the 
Great  Artificer's  workshop,  where  He  fashions  souls 
and  purifies  them  in  the  fire  of  experience  as  gold 
is  refined  by  fire.  Because  He  desires  man  to  master 
the  forces  of  nature,  He  afl^licts  him  with  poverty, 
bids  him  till  the  soil,  dig  for  coal  and  iron,  seek 
for  riches  across  the  sea.  Because  He  would  have 
us  clean,  pure,  and  wise.  He  sends  us  diseases  that 
we  may  conquer  them.  Because  He  would  have  us 
prize  the  spirit  rather  than  the  flesh,  he  sends  death. 
He  deprives  us  of  our  dearest  companions  that  we 
may  turn  our  thoughts  to  that  which  never  dies. 
Because  He  desires  us  to  rise  to  the  dignity  of 
immortal  souls.  He  bids  us  wrestle  with  poverty, 
ignorance,  disease,  and  death.  And  because  He 
would  have  us  realize  the  divinity  of  the  human 
soul,  He  permits  that  worst  of  evils,  sin,  making  it 
possible  for  us  to  destroy  our  souls.  Because  He 
would  have  us  overcome  evil  with  good,  He  sends 
His  prophets  to  preach  forgiveness  to  the  soul  that 
repenteth.    Not  that  God  would   tempt  us  to  sin 


ii6  Facts  About  the  Bible 

in  order  to  forgive  us:  the  ideal  of  the  sinless 
Jesus  shines  before  us.  The  forces  that  work  for 
truth,  righteousness,  and  love  are  constantly  draw- 
ing us  nearer  to  God — provided  always  that  we  will 
work  with  God  and  not  seek  to  destroy  ourselves. 
For  as  free  moral  agents  we  can  commit  the  suicide 
of  the  soul. 

Let  us  inquire  next  what  fruits  we  may  expect 
to  gather  from  this  tree  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
It  is  a  goodly  tree,  despite  the  contrary  opinion  of 
some  of  our  brethren,  and  it  bears  good  fruit. 

We  of  this  generation  can  hardly  hope  to  surpass 
in  nobility  of  character  sainted  men  who  have  gone 
before  us;  but  we  can  preserve  an  open  mind  and 
a  teachable  spirit  and  march  on  with  the  race  to 
higher  planes  of  living.  To  Christian  meekness 
and  forbearance  let  us  add  the  valor  and  indomita- 
ble resolution  of  our  Pagan  ancestors.  In  the  preach- 
ing of  Christianity  there  has  often  been  the  taint  of 
morbidness,  self-effacement,  false  humility.  Witness 
the  doctrines  of  celibacy  and  non-resistance.  Tolstoi 
advocated  both  these  doctrines,  and  found  his  war- 
rant for  so  doing  in  the  New  Testament.  Although 
himself  the  father  of  thirteen  children,  he  argued 
for  the  doctrine  of  celibacy,  maintaining  that  a 
parent  for  the  sake  of  his  children  is  forced  to  fight 
his  way  in  the  world,  and  that  all  fighting  is  wrong, 


Live  Issues  117 


as  Christ  has  taught  us  to  turn  the  other  cheek. 
It  is  not  necessary  that  we  inquire  as  to  the  exact 
teaching  of  Jesus.  If,  feeling  the  burden  of  op- 
pression under  which  his  race  had  labored  for  cen- 
turies, he  advocated  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance 
and  in  his  own  life  gave  us  an  example  of  celibacy, 
we  serve  him  best  not  in  the  spirit  of  imitation  and 
subserviency,  saying,  "Lord,  Lord" ;  but  in  the 
spirit  of  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Heavenly 
Father.     Such  was  his  teaching. 

With  the  preaching  of  Malthus  the  blight  of 
race-suicide  struck  America.  The  waste  of  our 
better  womanhood  is  more  disastrous  than  the  rav- 
ages of  war.  A  so-called  high  standard  of  living 
has  been  set  up  which  is  in  reality  a  low,  material 
standard;  and  women  who  should  become  mothers 
rush  to  the  industrial  centres  to  become  slaves.  Even 
professors  of  political  economy  in  our  universities 
advocate  the  policy  that  forbids  marriage  on  a 
salary  smaller  than  $5,000  a  year.  Such  a  policy 
would  lead  to  the  propagation  of  the  ignorant  and 
vicious  and  would  mean  race-suicide  for  the  intelli- 
gent. Let  women  as  well  as  men  renounce  the 
cowardly  doctrines  of  non-resistance  and  celibacy 
and  stand  with  those  who  bear  the  burdens  of  civil- 
ization. 

It  is  the  duty  of  civilized  man  to  maintain  him- 


Il8  Facts  About  the  Bible 

self.  The  martyrdom  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
Armenians  ought  to  establish  this  truth  for  all  time. 
The  four  thousand  Armenian  men,  women,  and 
children  who  fled  to  the  mountains,  where  for 
fifty-three  days  they  fought  ofE  the  Turks  until 
rescued  by  a  squadron  of  French  and  English  ships, 
not  only  saved  themselves  but  with  their  few  old- 
fashioned  rifles  shot  more  decency  into  the  lustful 
heart  of  the  Turk  than  was  implanted  there  by 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  who  perished  like  sheep. 
Sentimentalists  are  wont  to  deplore  Nature's  law 
of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  How  much  more  de- 
plorable that  the  intelligent  and  industrious  popu- 
lation of  Armenia  should  have  been  destroyed  to 
secure  the  survival  of  the  unfit! 

Civilized  man  must  maintain  himself  against  his 
enemies  be  they  germs  or  Germans.  Many  brave 
men  will  perish  in  the  struggle.  Self-sacrifice  seems 
to  be  an  essential  part  of  the  divine  economy.  But 
whether  we  are  to  live  or  die,  let  us  fight  like 
men,  with  faces  toward  the  enemy.  Let  us  preserve 
the  spirit  of  Christian  charity;  but  let  us  not  count 
it  Christian  charity  to  allow  Turk  or  German  to 
massacre  our  neighbors  or  ourselves. 

Why  specify  other  moral  attributes  that  should 
spring  from  the  root  of  truth?  Once  aroused  to 
fight   for   righteousness   we   shall   find   no   lack   of 


Live  Issues  119 


good  causes.  Let  us  rather  seek  inspiration,  with- 
out which  the  heart  grows  sick  and  resolution  fails. 
Fleeing  to  the  wilderness  before  the  wrath  of  some 
modern  Jezebel,  the  strong  man  cries:  "It  is 
enough:  now,  O  Lord,  take  away  my  life;  for  I 
am  not  better  than  my  fathers." 

There  is  inspiration  in  comradeship.  Brother- 
hoods, religious  societies,  civil  institutions  and  gov- 
ernments have  been  established  to  fortify  and  hold 
the  territory  won  by  civilized  man  from  the  powers 
of  darkness.  Let  us  rejoice  in  the  goodly  fellow- 
ship on  every  hand.  So  long  as  politics  and  religion 
are  barred,  good  men  everywhere  will  open  their 
hearts  to  you.  How  foolish  to  try  to  carry  the 
whole  burden  of  civilization  on  one's  own  shoulders, 
when  our  neighbors  are  as  loyal  to  truth  and  right 
as  we.  No  man  needs  to  exaggerate  his  own  im- 
portance or  to  cherish  gloomy  thoughts  over  his 
own  poor  achievements  when  once  he  realizes  how 
vast  and  powerful  are  the  armies  of  the  Lord.  In 
any  and  ever}^  line  of  endeavor  the  human  race  is 
superior  to  the  individual.  Forget  self  and  find 
encouragement,  renewed  confidence,  and  strength 
by  entering  into  the  comradeship  of  your  fellows. 
Any  true  man,  minister  or  layman,  will  extend  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship. 

Because  there  is  inspiration  in  numbers  and  or- 


I20  Facts  About  the  Bible 

ganization  society  has  established  churches.  There 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  disciples  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  should  organize  in  order  to  min- 
ister to  the  needs  of  intelligent  men.  There  are  al- 
ready a  few  liberal  churches  scattered  through  the 
United  States — Unitarian,  Universalist,  Congrega- 
tional. These  we  should  cherish  and  strengthen, 
not  only  for  our  own  sakes  (and  great  is  our  need 
of  them)  but  also  for  the  sake  of  the  nation.  Let 
us  maintain  these  altars  to  the  true  God,  who  is 
the  God  of  truth.  Let  us  organize  the  forces  of 
intelligence.  In  the  majority  of  the  Christian 
churches  of  the  country  it  is  doubtful  if  Jesus  could 
recognize  the  religion  which  bears  his  name.  Where 
people  are  forever  chanting  about  the  trinity  could 
he  recognize  the  pure  monotheism  which  he  taught? 
A  reform  as  great  as  Luther's  is  taking  place.  In 
spite  of  the  Tom  Paines  and  the  Ingersolls  we  are 
preserving  the  sublime  poetry  of  the  Bible  and 
learning  to  include  in  our  Scripture  the  wealth  of 
science  and  literature. 

The  day  of  a  timid,  doubtful  liberalism  is  past. 
It  is  no  longer  necessary  to  "believe,  as  it  were, 
and  repent,  so  to  speak,  or  be  damned,  in  a  way." 
The  sparkling  new  wine  of  truth  has  burst  the  old 
bottles.  Let  us  build  up  and  strengthen  our  lib- 
eral churches  lest  it  run  to  waste.     No  spiritual 


Live  Issues  I2i 


wealth  Is  too  great  to  lavish  upon  our  churches. 
It  is  right  that  Unitarians  like  Sir  John  Bowring, 
Sarah  Adams,  Theodore  Parker,  and  John  Chad- 
wick  should  have  given  us  some  of  the  most  beau- 
tiful hymns  in  the  English  language.  It  is  fitting 
that  we  should  have  had  sermons  as  noble  as  Chan- 
ning's  and  Emerson's  and  James  Walker's.  Teach- 
ers and  philanthropists  we  have  had.  There  has 
been,  and  there  should  be  in  the  future,  no  stinting 
of  spiritual  riches. 

But  in  the  matter  of  material  riches  we  should 
be  careful.  A  great  movement  can  be  crippled  by 
contracting  debts,  by  attempting  to  make  an  out- 
ward display  to  attract  the  crowd.  Men  who  live 
the  life  of  the  spirit  are  not  likely  to  be  well  sup- 
plied with  this  world's  goods.  It  will  hardly  do  to 
ask  some  holy  pirate  who  has  amassed  millions  at 
the  expense  of  honest  men  to  build  us  a  noble  edi- 
fice. We  need  to  remind  ourselves  of  the  poverty 
of  Jesus  and  his  disciples.  The  church,  the  society, 
is  the  real  and  helpful  thing,  not  the  building  which 
shelters  it.  The  free  man  is  not  dependent  upon 
a  church  building  or  even  upon  an  organized  church 
society.  He  can  commune  with  other  free  souls 
everywhere — In  books,  at  the  club,  In  the  market- 
place. Hence  the  difficulty  in  organizing  and  main- 
taining a  liberal  church.    Let  us  not  make  the  diffi- 


122  Facts  About  the  Bible 

culty  any  greater  by  running  into  debt.  Let  us  be 
content  with  a  simple  home,  pervaded  by  an  atmos- 
phere of  comfort  and  good  cheer.  The  church  at- 
mosphere is  the  principal  thing,  and  this  must  de- 
pend upon  the  people  who  compose  the  society. 
Where  there  are  truth  and  good-fellowship  and 
earnestness  there  we  shall  have  a  strong  and  use- 
ful church. 

It  is,  finally,  of  supreme  importance  to  inquire 
what  vision  inspires  the  disciple  of  liberalism.  The 
chief  objection  to  the  liberal  church  arises  no  doubt 
from  the  belief  that  it  has  come  to  destroy  rather 
than  to  fulfil.  But  liberalism  offers  more  dazzling 
rewards  than  salvation  and  the  golden  streets  of  the 
new  Jerusalem.  Yet,  when  we  substitute  for  the 
vision  of  orthodoxy  our  enthusiasm  for  humanity, 
establishing  hospitals,  schools  for  the  unfortunate, 
social  settlements,  do  we  satisfy  the  highest  need 
of  the  soul?  We,  too,  must  have  a  heavenly  vision 
to  beckon  us.  We  may  sacrifice  treasure,  and  even 
life,  in  good  works,  and  still  excite  the  pity  of  some 
old-fashioned  saint  who  sadly  shakes  his  head  over 
our  mistaken  efforts.  Surely  we  want  no  man's 
pity.  Have  we  not  won  the  larger  truth,  and  is 
not  that  in  itself  a  more  glorious  thing  to  contem- 
plate than  all  the  visions  that  have  vanished?  Is 
it  not  a  glorious  privilege  to  live  and  fight  for  the 


Live  Issues  123 


truth,  to  help  others  know  it  and  love  it?  Yes, 
the  truth  is  more  precious  than  anything  it  re- 
places. 

But  we  need  not  rest  here.  Let  us  look  for- 
ward in  confidence  to  the  truth  that  God  will  yet 
reveal.  Let  us  believe  in  and  work  for  the  salva- 
tion of  immortal  souls  even  more  piously  than  our 
elders  have.  Let  us  believe  that  none  of  the  doc- 
trines of  immortality  is  so  comforting  or  so  glorious 
as  the  truth  that  shall  be  revealed  to  us  when  we 
pass  through  the  gates  of  death.  Let  us  believe 
it  worth  while  to  redeem  one  human  soul  that  it 
may  taste  the  fruits  of  salvation.  Above  all,  let  us 
enter  into  immortality  here  and  now  through  the 
medium  of  prayer.  Let  me  not  pretend  to  suggest 
how  the  soul  should  commune  with  God.  But  let 
me  urge  that  nothing  in  the  Higher  Criticism 
should  obscure  our  vision  of  that  Heavenly  Father 
to  whom  Jesus  prayed. 


'"li'lmSfniiill'm.'SliS^'  Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01197  0151 


